[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 74 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5695-S5712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mr.Wellstone):
  S. 966. A bill to amend the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration Organization Act to encourage deployment of 
broadband service to rural America; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Daschle, 
Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, and Senator Wellstone to introduce the 
Rural Broadband Enhancement Act to deploy broadband technology to rural 
America. As the demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous 
companies are responding in areas of dense population. While urban 
America is quickly gaining high speed access, rural America is, once 
again, being left behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the 
technological capability is essential in this digital age. It is not

[[Page S5696]]

only an issue of fairness, but it is also an issue of economic 
survival.
  To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, this legislation 
gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service in consultation with 
NTIA to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying 
broadband technology to rural America. Loans are made on a company 
neutral and a technology neutral basis so that companies that want to 
serve these areas can do so by employing technology that is best suited 
to a particular area. Without this program, market forces will pass by 
much of America, and that is unacceptable.
  This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all 
of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When 
telephone service was only being provided to well-populated 
communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the 
Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The 
equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in 
keeping America connected, and our legislation would ensure that.
  If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As 
the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and 
communications, rural America must be able to participate. 
Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in 
Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were 
ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad 
tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system 
brought the same evolution.
  But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic 
growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and 
policy-makers are proclaiming, ``Distance is dead!'' But, that's not 
quite right: Distance will be dead, only as long as Congress ensures 
that broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban 
and rural.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues colleagues to pass this 
legislation and give rural America a fair chance to survive.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND.
  S. 967. A bill to establish the Military Readiness Investigation 
Board, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important 
matter of national security.
  Today many thousands of Americans are spread across the globe 
defending our national interest and those of our close friends and 
allies.
  While risking their lives to keep America safe, American soldiers 
sailors, airmen and marines are not as ready for combat as they should 
be.
  History has taught us that the more prepared we are for war, the less 
likely potential enemies will be to risk war in pursuit of their own 
national objectives.
  Our ability to prevail in war is, therefore, one of the most critical 
elements of our deterrence strategy.
  That is why I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will 
help us improve the combat readiness of our armed forces. Doing so will 
strengthen America's standing and security in the world and contribute 
to global stability.
  In recent years the topic of military readiness has received far more 
words than deeds. In all candor, we have talked this issue to death 
without being able to deliver for the troops who need our help.
  I think I know why. Words are far cheaper than the actions needed to 
restore a sharp edge to our combat forces.
  We know that we have problem with military readiness. It seems that 
every time we peel back the cheery assessments and closely examine the 
issue, we find that our military readiness is worse than advertised.
  Let me offer just a few examples.
  Today, the readiness level of too many of our aviation combat units 
is being maintained through cannibalization. One plane is striped of 
parts to keep others flying. The only problem with that is the practice 
actually accelerates the destruction of our combat readiness. A recent 
Navy investigation stated ``current readiness levels are being achieved 
through extensive cannibalization and the rates are increasing in every 
community we visited.''
  In other words, we have a bunch of hangar queens that have been 
robbed of parts and are not able to fly to provide the practice or to 
carry out the missions for which they were intended. Because of a 
shortage in money, our fliers are going into harm's way with outdated 
electronic intelligence files. The Navy E-2C Hawkeyes carry 
intelligence files that, in some case, are between 5 and 9 years old. 
The electronic intelligence files aboard the EA-6B Prowler planes, our 
jammers, are updated only on a 2-to-6-year cycle. The missiles we use 
to kill enemy radars are not being updated with new electronic 
intelligence parametric files.
  The Army's Third Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart Georgia was 
recently dropped to the second lowest readiness rating. Just over a 
year ago, two other Army divisions, the 10th Mountain and First 
Mechanized Division were briefly dropped to the lowest readiness 
rating--meaning they were unready for war. These are three of the 
Army's ten active duty divisions.
  The Marine Corps cannot replace its antiquated equipment because it 
has to steal money from its modernization account to keep its combat 
edge sharp.
  Sadly, there is an endless parade of anecdotal evidence. And too 
often, the anecdotal reports that leak to the press are far more 
accurate indictors of the true state of military readiness than the 
Pentagon's own internal reporting system.
  The evidence strongly suggests we have not kept faith with our troops 
who risk their lives for us. And that is our top obligation--to keep up 
our part of the social compact with our servicemen and women, in 
exchange for their willingness to risk their lives we promise to equip 
and train our troops so they may quickly prevail in combat with as few 
casualties as possible.
  While we know all to well the problem we face, we have yet to build a 
national consensus of the solution. And make no mistake, that is what a 
problem of this scale requires--a national consensus.
  To do that, we need an objective assessment of military readiness 
conducted by non-partisan, military experts. It would measure the 
current state of our U.S. military readiness and also examine the 
effectiveness of the Pentagon's current readiness reporting system.
  Much like the CIA required an outside panel of ``Team B'' experts 
during the 1970s, I believe the Pentagon desperately needs an outside 
group of experts to look at the readiness books.
  I believe that this review will help senior Pentagon officials obtain 
the most accurate picture possible of the true state of military 
readiness today.
  Such a measurement will also help Congress build a baseline 
understanding of military readiness that we must have if we are to 
begin funding the military's operations and maintenance accounts at a 
sufficient level.
  Let me just say this: Secretary Rumsfeld's decision to reexamine our 
national military strategy, force structure and procurement strategy is 
the right thing to do. Indeed, it is long overdue and I commend the 
administration for its commitment to this effort.
  This is very important, but we cannot overlook combat readiness as 
the most critical index of our Nation's ability to defend itself, our 
interests and our allies' interests. Strategic competitors pay close 
attention to reports of deteriorating U.S. military readiness and we 
must not embolden them by ignoring these reports ourselves.
  Many military experts have also contended that many of the military's 
readiness problems would disappear if the Pentagon dropped its plans to 
fight and win two major regional wars at one time. However, some say 
that the Nation's ability to wage major wars on two fronts acts as an 
important deterrent to potentially hostile states like North Korea. 
Secretary Rumsfelds' review coupled with a military readiness review 
panel should enable us for once to answer effectively and address these 
issues--to come up with the right balance and solutions for our troops 
and for our Nation.
  The readiness system is intended to pinpoint war-fighting 
deficiencies in every unit's equipment, transportation system, 
personnel and training. By many accounts this system is arcane

[[Page S5697]]

and inflexible and does not accurately depict the true state of 
readiness. It is time we reviewed this system and developed means to 
keep it the predictive and useful tool it was designed and intended to 
be.
  While we await the results of Secretary Rumsfeld's reviews, we 
already know that we have a persistent readiness problem that 
exacerbates other problems within the U.S. military, like manpower 
levels and morale.
  In a monthly readiness report the defense department sent to Congress 
in March, there was a list of ``strategic concerns'' about military 
readiness. This report indicated that despite some leveling off of 
declines in wartime preparedness, there is still an uphill battle to be 
fought to ensure U.S. Forces are ready for major operations. This 
report states that aviation readiness remains challenged by ``reduced 
aircraft mission-capable rates, parts shortages, and technical 
surprises and maintenance issues.''
  Readiness involves very many distinct issues. First, it's making sure 
that we're providing the resources needed to maintain readiness. 
Second, it's making sure that we are gathering the right data and 
information so that we've got true pictures of readiness. Third, it's 
dealing quickly and effectively with readiness issues when they're 
detected.
  Several weeks ago I released an article describing the legislation I 
am proposing here. As a result, I have received numerous letters from 
constituents reiterating the need for this review board and citing 
examples of why it should be done. One letter was sent by a women who 
has a daughter and two friends who are serving on various Navy bases. 
In her letter she describes a situation where there are not enough 
spare parts to go around. Nothing new--except this effects her 
personally and causes her to worry constantly about her family and 
friends because they are spread too thin and lack the spare parts to do 
their job, thereby endangering them needlessly.
  At the end of the cold war, force structure and personnel end 
strength were drastically cut in all the services. At the same time, 
the Nation discovered that the post-cold war world is a complex, 
dangerous place. As a result, deployments for contingency operations, 
peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and 
counter-terrorism operations increased dramatically and our dependence 
on the armed services for their deployments continues to grow.
  While our military forces got smaller, they did not become more ready 
for combat. In fact, our peak military readiness was reached 
immediately following Desert Storm in 1991 and has slowly and steadily 
declined since.
  And that is inexcusable for a superpower. We have a responsibility to 
our citizens and to countless millions around the world whose physical 
safety and economic and political stability is guaranteed because of 
our military strength.
  The world looks to us, and so as I review this military readiness 
problem and search for a solution I am guided by the simple notion that 
our strength guarantees global peace. Our military strength provides 
the foundation for the global economy and provides the economic and 
political stability for so many parts of the world. This understanding 
must guide our efforts as we seek to rebuild our military to prevail in 
our next war.
  Our own history during this century has shown us that when we try to 
judge our military by its cost-efficiency during peacetime we invite 
disaster. This happened at the outset of the Second World War in North 
Africa. And we saw it again when Task Force Smith was shredded by the 
North Koreans in 1950.
  How may times must we relearn the lesson that the only true measure 
of military effectiveness is performance in wartime?
  I commend to my colleagues a brilliant editorial in the Wall Street 
Journal by Mark Helprin. He writes of the myopic view of peacetime 
civilians charged with budgeting their militaries. ``God save the 
American soldier from those who believe that his life can be protected 
and his mission accomplished on the cheap,'' wrote Mr. Helprin. ``For 
what they perceive as extravagance is always less costly in lives and 
treasure than the long drawn-out wars it deters or shortens with quick 
victories.''
  I should explain that the bill I have introduced establishes a 
commission to be appointed by the Secretary of Defense with the 
concurrence of the chairs and ranking members of the authorizing 
appropriations committees to look at the issues of readiness and to be 
sure that they report to the Congress and to the United States, No. 1, 
on the status of readiness and, No. 2, on the reliability, or lack 
thereof, in the system set up to determine readiness.
  I respect the great work being done by the Readiness Subcommittee of 
the Armed Services Committee. I have spoken with the chair and ranking 
members. We want to be a supplement to and a sounding board, perhaps, 
to provide a louder microphone or megaphone for the information 
determined in that Readiness Subcommittee.
  I hope my colleagues will look at this measure and join me in 
sponsoring it. I am pleased to ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Roberts, be listed as a cosponsor.
  I invite other colleagues who have an interest in this to look at it 
and join with me. I hope and trust we can have a strong bipartisan 
effort to achieve something which should be the goal and the objective 
of all of us.
  I ask unanimous consent that two articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2001]

                           The Fire Next Time

                           (By Mark Helprin)

       From Alexandria in July of 1941, Randolph Churchill 
     reported to his father as the British waited for Rommel to 
     attack Egypt. In the midst of a peril that famously 
     concentrated mind and spirit, he wrote, ``You can see 
     generals wandering around GHQ looking for bits of string.''
       Apparently these generals were not, like their prime 
     minister, devoted to Napoleon's maxim, ``Frappez la masse, et 
     le reste vient par surcroit,'' which, vis-a-vis strategic or 
     other problems, bids one to concentrate upon the essence, 
     with assurance that all else will follow in train, even bits 
     of string.
       Those with more than a superficial view of American 
     national security, who would defend and preserve it from the 
     fire next time, have by necessity divided their forces in 
     advocacy of its various elements, but they have neglected its 
     essence. For the cardinal issue of national security is not 
     China, is not Russia, is not weapons of mass destruction, or 
     missile defense, the revolution in military affairs, 
     terrorism, training, or readiness. It is, rather, that the 
     general consensus in regard to defense since Pearl Harbor--
     that doing too much is more prudent than doing too little--
     has been destroyed. The last time we devoted a lesser 
     proportion of our resources to defense, we were well 
     protected by the oceans, in the midst of a depression, and 
     without major international responsibilities, and even then 
     it was a dereliction of duty.
       The destruction is so influential that traditional 
     supporters of high defense spending, bent to the will of 
     their detractors, shrink from argument, choosing rather to 
     negotiate among themselves so as to prepare painstakingly 
     crafted instruments of surrender.
       A leader of defense reform, whose life mission is to defend 
     the United States, writes to me: ``Please do not quote me 
     under any circumstances by name. . . . Bush has no chance of 
     winning the argument that more money must be spent on 
     defense. Very few Americans feel that more money needs to be 
     spent on defense and they are right. The amount of money 
     being spent is already more than sufficient.''
       More than sufficient to fight China? It is hard to think of 
     anything less appealing than war with China, but if we don't 
     want that we must be able to deter China, and to deter China 
     we must have the ability to fight China. More than sufficient 
     to deal with simultaneous invasions of Kuwait, South Korea, 
     and Taiwan? More than sufficient to stop even one incoming 
     ballistic missile? Not yet, not now, and, until we spend the 
     money, not ever.
       For someone of the all-too-common opinion that a strong 
     defense is the cause of war, a favorite trick is to advance a 
     wholesale revision of strategy, so that he may accomplish his 
     depredations while looking like a reformer. This pattern is 
     followed instinctively by the French when they are 
     in alliance and by the left when it is trapped within the 
     democratic order. But to do so one need be neither French 
     nor on the left.
       Neville Chamberlain, who was neither, starved the army and 
     navy on the theory that the revolution in military affairs of 
     his time made the only defense feasible that a ``Fortress 
     Britain'' protected by the Royal Air Force--and then failed 
     in building up the air force. Bill Clinton, who is not 
     French, and who came into office calling for the 
     discontinuance of heavy echelons in favor of power 
     projection, simultaneously pressed for a severe reduction in 
     aircraft carriers, the sine qua non of power projection. 
     Later, he and his strategical toadies embraced the revolution 
     in military affairs not for its virtues

[[Page S5698]]

     but because even the Clinton-ravished military ``may be 
     unaffordable,'' and ``advanced technology offers much greater 
     military efficiency.''
       This potential efficiency is largely unfamiliar to the 
     general public. For example, current miniaturized weapons may 
     seem elephantine after advances in extreme ultraviolet 
     lithography equip guidance and control systems with circuitry 
     not 0.25 microns but 0.007 microns wide, a 35-fold reduction 
     that will make possible the robotization of arms, from 
     terminally guided and target-identifying bullets to 
     autonomous tank killers that fly hundreds of miles, burrow 
     into the ground, and sleep like locusts until they are 
     awakened by the seismic signature of enemy armor.
       Lead-magnesium-niobate transducers in broadband sonars are 
     likely to make the seas perfectly transparent, eliminating 
     for the first time the presumed invulnerability of submarine-
     launched ballistic missiles, the anchor of strategic nuclear 
     stability. The steady perfection of missile guidance has long 
     made nearly everything the left says about nuclear 
     disarmament disingenuous or uninformed, and the advent of 
     metastable explosives creates the prospect of a single B-1 
     bomber carrying the non-nuclear weapons load of 450 B-17s, 
     the equivalent of 26,800 100-pound bombs. Someday, we will 
     have these things, or, if we abstain, or potential enemies 
     will have them and we will not.
       To field them will be more expensive then fielding less 
     miraculous weapons, which cannot simply be abandoned lest an 
     enemy exploit the transition, and which will remain as 
     indispensable as the rifleman holding his ground, because the 
     nature of war is counter-miraculous. And yet, when the 
     revolution in military affairs is still mainly academic, we 
     have cut recklessly into the staple forces.
       God save the American soldier from those who believe that 
     his life can be protected and his mission accomplished on the 
     cheap. For what they perceive as extravagance is always less 
     costly in lives and treasure than the long drawn-out wars it 
     deters altogether or shortens with quick victories. In the 
     name of their misplaced frugality we have transformed our 
     richly competitive process of acquiring weapons into the 
     single-supplier model of the command economies that we 
     defeated in the Cold War, largely with the superior weapons 
     that the idea of free and competitive markets allowed us to 
     produce.
       Though initially more expensive, producing half a dozen 
     different combat aircraft and seeing which are best is better 
     than decreeing that one will do the job and praying that it 
     may. Among other things, strike aircraft have many different 
     roles, and relying upon just one would be the same sort of 
     economy as having Clark Gable play both Rhett Butler and 
     Scarlett O'Hara.
       Having relinquished or abandoned many foreign bases, the 
     United States requires its warships to go quickly from place 
     to place so as to compensate for their inadequate number, and 
     has built them light using a lot of aluminum, which, because 
     it can burn in air at 3,000 degrees Celsius, is used in 
     incendiary bombs and blast furnaces. (Join the navy and see 
     the world. You won't need to bring a toaster.)
       And aluminum or not, there are too few ships, During the 
     EP-3 incident various pinheads furthered the impression of an 
     American naval cordon off the Chinese coast. Though in 1944 
     the navy kept 17 major carriers in the central Pacific alone, 
     not long ago its assets were so attenuated by the destruction 
     of a few Yugos disguised as tanks that for three months 
     there was not in the vast western Pacific even a single 
     American aircraft carrier.
       What remains of the order of battle is crippled by a lack 
     of the unglamorous, costly supports that are the first to go 
     when there isn't enough money. Consider the floating dry 
     dock. By putting ships back into action with minimal transit 
     time, floating dry docks are force preservers and 
     multipliers. In 1972, the United States had 94. Now it has 
     14. Though history is bitter and clear, this kind of mistake 
     persists.
       Had the allies of World War II been prepared with a 
     sufficient number of so pedestrian a thing as landing craft, 
     the war might have been cheated of a year and a half and many 
     millions of lives. In 1940, the French army disposed of 530 
     artillery pieces, 830 antitank guns, and 235 (almost half) of 
     its best tanks, because in 1940 the French did not think much 
     of the Wehrmacht--until May.
       How shall the United States avoid similar misjudgments? Who 
     shall stand against the common wisdom when it is wrong about 
     deterrence, wrong about the causes of war, wrong about the 
     state of the world, wrong about the ambitions of ascendant 
     nations, wrong about history, and wrong about human nature?
       In the defense of the United States, doing too much is more 
     prudent than doing too little. Though many in Congress argue 
     this and argue it well, Congress will not follow one of its 
     own. Though the president's appointees also argue it well, 
     the public will wait only upon the president himself. Only he 
     can sway a timid Congress, clear the way for his appointees, 
     and move the country toward the restoration of its military 
     power.
       The president himself must make the argument, or all else 
     is in vain. If he is unwilling to risk his political capital 
     and his presidency to undo the damage of the past eight 
     years, then in the fire next time his name will be linked 
     with that of his predecessor, and there it will stay forever.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 20, 2001]

                Rumsfield on High Wire of Defense Reform

                          (By Thomas E. Ricks)

       In his first four months at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary 
     Donald H. Rumsfeld has launched a score of secretive studies 
     and posed hundreds of tough questions as he has tried to 
     create a new vision for the American military, looking at 
     everything from missile defenses and global strategy to the 
     flaws of a Truman-vintage personnel system.
       Yet, in that short span, he has also rallied an unlikely 
     collection of critics, ranging from conservative members of 
     Congress and his predecessor as defense secretary to some of 
     the generals who work for him. In dozens of interviews, those 
     people expressed deep concern that Rumsfeld has acted 
     imperiously, kept some of the top brass in the dark and 
     failed to maintain adequate communications with Capitol Hill.
       ``He's blown off the Hill, he's blown off the senior 
     leaders in the military, and he's blown off the media,'' said 
     Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the conservative Project 
     for the New American Century. ``Is there a single group he's 
     reached out to?''
       The criticism has focused on Rumsfeld's score of study 
     groups, staffed by retired generals and admirals and other 
     experts who are probing everything from weapons programs to 
     military retirement policies. In Pentagon hallways, ``the 
     Rumsfeld review,'' as the studies are collectively called, is 
     mocked by some as a martial version of Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton's health care plan, which failed spectacularly in 
     1994 when it was offered up to Congress.
       ``It's arrogant theorists behind closed doors,'' said one 
     person offering the Clinton analogy, retired Army Lt. Col. 
     Ralph Peters, now a prominent writer on military strategy.
       The military is already responding in significant and 
     striking ways. On Thursday, the Joint Chiefs of Staff held a 
     closed-door meeting in the ``Tank,'' their secure conference 
     room at the Pentagon, where they posed scathing questions 
     about Rumsfeld's intentions on strategy and possible cuts to 
     the Army, defense officials said. Yesterday, retired Gen. 
     Gordon Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff, delivered an 
     angry speech assailing the apparent direction of Rumsfeld's 
     reforms as ``imprudent.''
       One point on which both Rumsfeld and his critics agree is 
     the gravity of his reform effort. Reshaping the military to 
     meet the new threats of the 21st century--and to keep the 
     U.S. armed forces by far the stongest in the world--was a key 
     campaign pledge of President Bush. To be successful, Rumsfeld 
     must not only come up with specific answers but also find 
     enough support in Congress and across the military to fund 
     them and carry them out. The job will be made all the more 
     difficult because the reforms could anger members of Congress 
     by closing bases, terminating major weapons programs and 
     shifting some spending from tanks, ships and aircraft into 
     newer areas such as space and missile defenses.
       In an extensive interview in his Pentagon office last week, 
     Rumsfeld argued that his review has been necessary, rational 
     and inclusive, involving more than 170 meetings with 44 
     generals and admirals. ``Everyone who wants to be briefed I 
     think has been briefed,'' he said. ``Everyone cannot be 
     involved in everything.''
       Far from reaching concrete conclusions behind closed doors, 
     he said, he simply has been posing questions about how to 
     change the military to deal with a world where even Third 
     World nations can buy long-range missiles, terrorists have 
     attacked sites inside the United States, and the American 
     economy is increasingly reliant on vulnerable satellites. 
     ``I've got a lot of thoughts, but I don't have a lot of 
     answers,'' he said.
       Overall, Rumsfeld swung in the interview between being 
     conciliatory toward his critics and being dismissive of them. 
     ``Is change hard for people? Yeah,'' he said sympathetically. 
     ``Is the anticipation of change even harder? Yeah.''
       But a moment later he added: ``The people it shakes up may 
     very well be people who don't have enough to do. They're too 
     busy getting shook up. They should get out there and get to 
     work.''


                             brusque style

       Rumsfeld, a bright, impatient man who is not a schmoozer by 
     nature, spent years as an executive in the pharmaceutical 
     industry and honed a top-down management style. That approach 
     may be the only way to overhaul America's huge and 
     conservative military establishment. But his brusque manner 
     has exacerbated anxiety about change in the Pentagon and 
     could, in the end, undercut his effort.
       Generals who have met with him report that communications 
     tend to be one way. ``He takes a lot in, but he doesn't give 
     anything back,'' one said. ``You go and brief him, and it's 
     just blank.''
       Neither that general nor any other Pentagon official 
     critical of Rumsfeld would agree to be quoted by name. 
     Indeed, one said Rumsfeld's aides would ``have my tongue'' 
     were it known that he had talked to a reporter.
       Many of those interviewed said they are worried that the 
     future of the institution to which they have devoted their 
     adult lives is being decided without them. One senior general 
     unfavorably compared Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Pentagon 
     with Colin L. Powell's performance as secretary of state. 
     ``Mr.

[[Page S5699]]

     Powell is very inclusive, and Mr. Rumsfeld is the opposite,'' 
     said the general, who knows both men. ``We've been kept out 
     of the loop.''
       Added another senior officer: ``The fact is, he is 
     disenfranchising people.''
       Some noted that the Bush administration came into office 
     vowing to restore the military's trust in its civilian 
     overseers. ``Everyone in the military voted for these guys, 
     and now they feel like they aren't being trusted,'' a 
     Pentagon official said.
       The Army, which has the reputation of being the most 
     doggedly obedient of all the services, appears to be closest 
     to going into opposition against the new regime. Army 
     generals are especially alarmed by rumors that they could 
     lose one or two of their 10 active divisions under the new 
     Pacific-oriented strategy that Rumsfeld appears to be moving 
     toward but has not yet unveiled.
       At the Joint Chiefs' ``Tank'' session on Thursday, one 
     defense official said, the Army led the charge against the 
     conclusions of a Rumsfeld study group on conventional weapons 
     that suggested big cuts in Army troops. The service chiefs 
     told their chairman, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, that they could 
     not make sense of that recommendation without knowing 
     precisely what strategy Rumsfeld wants to pursue. ``It wasn't 
     just the Army, but [Army officers] took the lead'' in the 
     criticism, the official added.
       Retired generals often say in public what the active-duty 
     leadership is thinking but can't utter. Sullivan, the former 
     Army chief, appeared to play that role yesterday in a speech 
     to a conference of Army reservists. He said he is worried 
     that Rumsfeld would ``propose a world in which we will be 
     able to hide behind our missile defense,'' which he went on 
     to liken to the expensive but useless Maginot Line that 
     France erected against Germany after World War I.
       In another recent talk, Sullivan referred to Rumsfeld's new 
     emphasis on space as a ``rathole'' for defense spending. He 
     also sent an e-mail criticizing Rumsfeld, and that message 
     has circulated widely inside the Army.


                             wary generals

       The military now appears so wary of Rumsfeld that officers 
     perceive slights where none may have been intended. The 
     generals are especially peeved by what they believe is a 
     pattern of moves by Rumsfeld to reallocate power from the 
     military to himself.
       Earlier this month, for example, Rumsfeld dumped his 
     military assistant, a one-star admiral who had been picked 
     for the job just four months earlier, and replaced him with a 
     three-star admiral. ``It turned out I made a mistake, just to 
     be blunt about it, thinking that a one-star could, simply 
     because he was in the secretary's office, get the place to 
     move at the same pace that a three-star could or a two-
     star,'' Rumsfeld explained. In other words, one flag officer 
     commented, Rumsfeld felt he needed someone who could crack 
     the whip over the top brass.
       Rumsfeld also caused a stir in the services by bringing in 
     retired Vice Adm. Staser Holcomb, who was his military 
     assistant during his first term as secretary of defense, 
     under President Gerald R. Ford, to look over the current crop 
     of generals and admirals. Holcomb's queries may indicate that 
     Rumsfeld wants to take over the selection of top generals--
     one of the last prerogatives left to the service chiefs. The 
     chiefs generally have little say about operational matters, 
     which are the province of the regional commanders, or 
     ``CinCs,'' and they don't have much sway over weapons 
     acquisition, which is a civilian responsibility. But they do 
     get to pick who joins the club of top generals.
       Rumsfeld said Holcomb is working on military personnel 
     matters, especially in helping him look at who should become 
     the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Shelton 
     steps down later this year. Asked whether he is stepping on 
     the toes of the service chiefs by getting involved in the 
     selection of two- and three-star generals, Rumsfeld grinned 
     and laughed, but said nothing.
       Rumsfeld has also been planning to start a new ``Crisis 
     Coordination Center'' to be overseen by his office, defense 
     officials said. They report that Rumsfeld believes that 
     communications and responsibilities during crises have been 
     handled hazily. Creating such a center--a move that has not 
     previously been reported--almost certainly would diminish the 
     power of the staff of the Joint Chiefs, which oversees 
     operations.
       Rumsfeld's views on crisis communications may have been 
     crystallized by an undisclosed foul-up that occurred during 
     the Feb. 16 air strikes against Iraq, the Bush 
     administration's first use of military force. At the last 
     minute, military commanders moved up the timing of the 
     strikes by six hours.
       But word somehow didn't get to Bush, said several defense 
     officials. The president had expected the bombs to begin 
     dropping as he headed home from a summit meeting in Mexico. 
     Instead, the strikes started just as he arrived for that 
     meeting, overshadowing his first foreign trip as president 
     and infuriating him, officials said.
       Rumsfeld declined to comment on that incident. But he said 
     that, generally speaking, miscommunications are ``inevitable 
     when people are new on the job.''


                         tensions with congress

       If anything, Rumsfeld's relations with Capitol Hill have 
     been even more tumultuous. The military, after all, 
     ultimately will follow orders. But Congress expects to have a 
     big say in the orders.
       ``There really could be a huge collision between Rumsfeld, 
     the services and Congress,'' predicted Harlan Ullman, a 
     defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International 
     Studies. ``There's an iceberg out there, and there's a 
     Titanic.''
       Ullman said he thinks Rumsfeld has done a fairly good job, 
     considering how understaffed the top of the Pentagon has 
     been, with only a few senior officials in place.
       But he also said that the Bush White House has badly 
     miscalculated on the politics of defense. ``I don't think the 
     administration understands how much political capital it will 
     take to change the U.S. military,'' he said. He and others 
     warn that defense isn't a major issue on the Hill, and that 
     no clear constituency exists for military reform. At the same 
     time, there is a clear bloc against change, consisting of 
     members of Congress who worry that bases and weapons 
     plants in their districts could be closed.
       Rumsfeld said he has devoted enormous effort to 
     congressional relations, holding about 70 meetings with 115 
     lawmakers over the past four months. ``I am on the hill 
     frequently,'' he said. ``I frequently have breakfasts and 
     lunches down here that include members.''
       But the view from the Hill appears to be different. ``There 
     are lots of members concerned about the lack of 
     communications,'' a Senate staffer said last week.
       One warning sign has been a spate of ``holds'' placed on 
     Rumsfeld's nominees by angry senators. These holds, which 
     prevent a confirmation vote from taking place, aren't made 
     public. But it is striking that Republican senators appear to 
     have held up some of the nominees of a Republican 
     administration. The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott (R-
     Miss.), controlled two of the holds--on the nominees to be 
     the Pentagon's general counsel and assistant secretary for 
     public affairs--that were lifted late Thursday.
       Rumsfeld's predecessor as defense secretary, William S. 
     Cohen, took the unusual step last week of publicly 
     criticizing Rumsfeld's handling of Congress. ``However 
     brilliant the strategy may be, you cannot formulate a 
     strategy and mandate that Congress implement it,'' Cohen, a 
     former Republican senator, told a group of reporters.
       ``The less they're involved in the beginning,'' Cohen 
     warned, ``the more they'll be involved in the end, and not 
     necessarily in a positive way.''
       Rumsfeld appears to have strong backing not only from Bush 
     but also from Vice President Cheney, his former protege when 
     Rumsfeld was a White House counselor and then chief of staff 
     in the Ford administration. Earlier this month, a senior 
     White House official said: ``The vice president indicated to 
     the secretary that he would be as helpful as he could. As a 
     former defense secretary, he has a special interest in the 
     Pentagon.''
       Where the White house stands on Rumsfeld's efforts should 
     become clearer this Friday, when Bush is scheduled to speak 
     about U.S. military strategy in a commencement address at 
     Annapolis.
       In the following weeks, Rumsfeld will engage Congress in 
     hearings, then will begin making critical decisions on high-
     profile weapons systems and on whether to cut the size of the 
     military to pay for new weapons. Every one of those decisions 
     could antagonize members of Congress.
       Rumsfeld said he looks forward to working with lawmakers to 
     find the right answers. ``Hell, I know what I can do and I 
     can't do,'' he said. ``I can do some things, but I can't 
     simply stick a computer chip in my head and come out with a 
     perfect answer to big, tough important questions like that 
     for the country. Even if you could, change imposed is change 
     opposed.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 968. A bill to establish Healthy and High Performance Schools 
Program in the Department of Education and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to help 
our schools become more energy efficient.
  Each year, America's schools spend more on energy costs than they do 
on books and computers combined.
  As we continue to debate education spending, there is at least one 
way to save on education costs: energy efficiency measures could save 
America's schools $1.5 billion. And we can reinvest those dollars into 
educational resources--like books, computers or more training for our 
teachers--that can make a real difference for our children's futures.
  Typically, nearly one-third of the energy used in a U.S. school goes 
to waste because of outdated technology, old equipment and poor 
insulation. The least energy-efficient schools, many of which are in 
desperate need of upgrades and repair, use almost four times as much 
energy per square foot as the most energy-efficient ones.
  Over half of our the country's K-12 schools are more than 40 years 
old and in need of renovation to reach standards of efficiency and 
comfort. And it's estimated that 6,000 new schools will be needed in 
the next 10 years because of the growing student population.

[[Page S5700]]

  The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that schools could save 25 to 
30 percent of the money they spend on energy--$1.5 billion--through 
better building design, use of energy-efficient and renewable energy 
technologies and improvements to operations and maintenance.
  Unfortunately, school districts may not be aware of the things they 
can do to be more energy efficient, improve indoor environments, and 
save money. That is why the legislation that I am introducing today is 
so important. The Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001 
would create a program within the Department of Education to provide 
grants to states to help school districts make their buildings 
healthier and more energy efficient. It will help our schools improve 
the indoor air quality, make smart energy efficient upgrades and take 
advantage of new, energy efficient technology. And this will save our 
schools money.
  There are some basic things that every school can do to reduce energy 
use. If schools adopt energy management systems to coordinate heating, 
ventilation and air conditioning they can help ensure rooms are heated 
and cooled only while being used.
  And simply closing doors to keep heated or cooled air from escaping 
can save money. Schools can add insulation to walls, floors, attics and 
ceilings or use shades, films and screens to better secure windows. 
Using some type of window treatment in the summer can greatly reduce 
the need for air conditioning. Energy-efficient fixtures, bulbs and 
lamps can make a big difference too. And installing occupancy sensors 
to control lighting when rooms are empty is smart and efficient.
  So much of the energy used by schools--approximately fifteen 
percent--is for cooking, refrigeration, and heating hot water. Simply 
maintaining food service equipment in schools can mean large energy 
savings.
  Energy use by computers and office equipment is one of the fastest-
growing sources of electricity consumption in schools, businesses and 
homes. And it is expected to grow by as much as 500 percent in the next 
decade. If schools use products with an ENERGY STAR label--the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, label for energy efficient 
appliances--they can save as much as 50 percent in energy costs.
  And I'm proud to report that many schools in New York are already 
leading the way.
  The Smithtown School District on Long Island recently became the 
first school district in New York State to receive the Energy Star 
label. The District completed an extensive lighting modification 
project using the latest energy-efficient technologies in three of its 
elementary schools. Three schools, Smithtown Elementary, Mount Pleasant 
Elementary and Dogwood Elementary, will display the bronze plaque with 
the Energy Star logo in their buildings. The district now uses more 
than five million kilowatts less than it did in the 1970's.
  The Kingston School District in Ulster County, New York, made drastic 
improvements in the energy performance of all the schools in the 
district by replacing many of the windows, installing new boilers, and 
making other energy efficient upgrades. In 2000, the school district 
saved more than $395,000 through its energy-efficiency upgrades and in 
2001, received an Energy Star Partner of the Year Award.
  Sachem Central School District on Long Island was awarded the Energy 
Start Partner of the Year Award in 2000. The District installed energy-
efficient lighting fixtures and new boilers that resulted in savings of 
almost 300,000 gallons of oil and more than 2.9 million kWh. Special 
building automation system helps measure, monitor and manage energy 
use.
  Other New York Energy Star School Partners are Connetquot Central 
School District, East Rockaway Public Schools, Fordham Preparatory 
School, Patchogue Medford Schools, Rochester City School District, Rye 
City School District and Wantagh Union Free School District.
  I am pleased to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, 
Mark Udall from Colorado, the sponsor of the High Performance Schools 
Act of 2001, H.R. 1129, as well as the co-sponsors, including my fellow 
New Yorkers, Sherwood Boehlert and Maurice Hinchey.
  I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in supporting 
this legislation, which has bipartisan support in the House, so that we 
can provide our schools with the tools that they need to save money on 
their energy costs, and reinvest that money into much-needed education 
resources that can help our children reach their goals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 968

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy and High Performance 
     Schools Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) American kindergarten through grade 12 schools spend 
     over $6,000,000,000 annually on energy costs, which is more 
     than is spent on books and computers combined.
       (2) Approximately 25,000,000 students are attending schools 
     with at least 1 unsatisfactory environmental condition.
       (3) Educators teach and students learn best in an 
     environment that is comfortable, healthy, naturally lit where 
     possible, and in good repair, and studies have indicated that 
     student achievement is greater and attendance higher when 
     those conditions are met.
       (4) Over half of our Nation's kindergarten through grade 12 
     schools are more than 40 years old and in need of renovation 
     to reach such standard of efficiency and comfort, and 6,000 
     new schools will be required over the next 10 years to 
     accommodate the growing number of students.
       (5) Inadequate ventilation in school buildings, poor 
     lighting and acoustical quality, and uncomfortable 
     temperatures can cause poor health and diminish students' 
     capacity to concentrate and excel.
       (6) Inefficient use of water, either in consumption or from 
     poorly maintained systems, is prevalent in older schools.
       (7) Using a whole building approach in the design of new 
     schools and the renovation of existing schools (considering 
     how materials, systems, and products connect and overlap and 
     also how a school is integrated on its site and within the 
     surrounding community) will result in healthy and high 
     performance school buildings.
       (8) Adoption of whole building concepts has been shown to 
     result in dramatic improvements in student and teacher 
     performance.
       (9) Adopting a whole building approach usually results in a 
     lower life cycle cost for the school building than for a 
     conventionally designed and built building.
       (10) Systematic use of energy conservation in school 
     construction and renovation projects can save at least one 
     quarter of current energy costs, leaving more money for 
     teachers and educational materials.
       (11) The use of renewable energy sources such as 
     daylighting, solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass 
     power in a building already designed to be energy-efficient 
     can help meet the building's energy needs without added 
     emissions.
       (12) Using environmentally preferable products and 
     providing for adequate supplies of fresh air will improve 
     indoor air quality and provide healthful school buildings.
       (13) Most school districts do not have the knowledge of 
     cutting-edge design and technologies to integrate optimum 
     efficiency and environmentally healthy designs into new 
     school construction or into school renovations.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to assist local 
     educational agencies in the production of high performance 
     elementary school and secondary school buildings that are 
     healthful, productive, energy-efficient, and environmentally 
     sound.

     SEC. 3. PROGRAM ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Program.--There is established in the Department of 
     Education the High Performance Schools Program (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Program'').
       (b) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, may, through the Program, 
     award grants to State educational agencies to permit such 
     State educational agencies to carry out subsection (c).
       (c) State Use of Funds.--
       (1) Subgrants.--
       (A) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this Act shall use the grant funds made available 
     under section 4(a)(1) to award subgrants to local educational 
     agencies to permit such local educational agencies to carry 
     out the activities described in subsection (d).
       (B) Limitation.--A State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under subparagraph (A) to local educational 
     agencies that have made a commitment to use the subgrant 
     funds to develop healthy, high performance school buildings 
     in accordance with the plan developed and approved pursuant 
     to subparagraph (C)(i).
       (C) Implementation.--
       (i) Plans.--A State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under paragraph (1) only to local educational 
     agencies that, in

[[Page S5701]]

     consultation with the State educational agency and State 
     offices with responsibilities relating to energy and health, 
     have developed plans that the State educational agency 
     determines to be feasible and appropriate in order to achieve 
     the purposes for which such subgrants are made.
       (ii) Supplementing grant funds.--The State educational 
     agency shall encourage qualifying local educational agencies 
     to supplement their subgrant funds with funds from other 
     sources in the implementation of their plans.
       (2) Administration.--A State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this Act shall use the grant funds made available 
     under section 4(a)(2)--
       (A) to evaluate compliance by local educational agencies 
     with the requirements of this Act;
       (B) to distribute information and materials to clearly 
     define and promote the development of healthy, high 
     performance school buildings for both new and existing 
     facilities;
       (C) to organize and conduct programs for school board 
     members, school district personnel, architects, engineers, 
     and others to advance the concepts of healthy, high 
     performance school buildings;
       (D) to obtain technical services and assistance in planning 
     and designing high performance school buildings; and
       (E) to collect and monitor information pertaining to the 
     high performance school building projects funded under this 
     Act.
       (3) Promotion.--Subject to section 4(a), a State 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this Act may use 
     grant funds for promotional and marketing activities, 
     including facilitating private and public financing, working 
     with school administrations, students, and communities, and 
     coordinating public benefit programs.
       (d) Local Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A local educational agency receiving a 
     subgrant under subsection (c)(1) shall use such subgrant 
     funds for new school building projects and renovation 
     projects that--
       (A) achieve energy-efficiency performance that reduces 
     energy use to at least 30 percent below that of a school 
     constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in 
     Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code, 
     or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially 
     equivalent results; and
       (B) achieve environmentally healthy schools in compliance 
     with Federal and State codes intended to achieve healthy and 
     safe school environments.
       (2) Existing buildings.--A local educational agency 
     receiving a subgrant under subsection (c)(1) for renovation 
     of existing school buildings shall use such subgrant funds to 
     achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces energy use 
     below the school's baseline consumption, assuming a 3-year, 
     weather-normalized average for calculating such baseline and 
     to help bring schools into compliance with health and safety 
     standards.

     SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--A State receiving a grant under this Act 
     shall use--
       (1) not less than 70 percent of such grant funds to carry 
     out section 3(c)(1); and
       (2) not less than 15 percent of such grant funds to carry 
     out section 3(c)(2).
       (b) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve an amount not 
     to exceed $300,000 per year from amounts appropriated under 
     section 6 to assist State educational agencies in 
     coordinating and implementing the Program. Such funds may be 
     used to develop reference materials to further define the 
     principles and criteria to achieve healthy, high performance 
     school buildings.

     SEC. 5. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a biennial 
     review of State actions implementing this Act, and shall 
     report to Congress on the results of such reviews.
       (b) Reviews.--In conducting such reviews, the Secretary 
     shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation procedures 
     used by State educational agencies in establishing 
     eligibility of local educational agencies for subgrants under 
     this Act, and may assess other aspects of the Program to 
     determine whether the aspects have been effectively 
     implemented.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     carry out this Act--
       (1) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2005; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2011.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Elementary school and secondary school.--The terms 
     ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' have the same 
     meanings given such terms in section 14101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) Healthy, high performance school building.--The term 
     ``healthy, high performance school building'' means a school 
     building which, in its design, construction, operation, and 
     maintenance, maximizes use of renewable energy and energy-
     efficient practices, is cost-effective on a life cycle basis, 
     uses affordable, environmentally preferable, durable 
     materials, enhances indoor environmental quality, protects 
     and conserves water, and optimizes site potential.
       (3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section 
     14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (4) Renewable energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means 
     energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or 
     biomass power.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (6) State educational agency.--The term ``State educational 
     agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section 
     14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8801).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 970. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, Maine, as the Horatio 
King Post Office Building; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
honor one of the great contributors to our national postal system, 
Horatio King, by naming after him the Paris Hill Post Office in Paris, 
ME, the town of his birth. My colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, 
joins me in this effort.
  Horatio King had a long career serving the public as a newspaper 
publisher and postal employee, eventually working his way through the 
ranks to become Postmaster General under President Buchanan. All told, 
he served under three Presidents.
  His career with the Postal Service began in 1839, when he was 
appointed by then Postmaster General Kendall to a postal position that 
required him to leave Maine and reside in Washington, DC. In 1850, he 
became affiliated with the foreign mail service and was instrumental in 
developing this aspect of our postal system. His efforts were 
recognized in 1854 when he was appointed first assistant Postmaster 
General, a post he would hold until becoming Postmaster General in 
1861, shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War.
  Horatio King did not end his service, however, after reaching this 
pinnacle. In 1863, President Lincoln recognized his steadfast devotion 
to the Union and, although King was of the opposite political party, 
named him to a commission charged with carrying out the Emancipation 
Proclamation in the District of Columbia.
  King was also a man of letters, and was well known for his literary 
evenings which did much to elevate the culture in Washington at a time 
when it was a much smaller and less diverse town than the one of today. 
He would frequently publish newspaper and magazine articles and 
lectures, and even published a book of travel sketches upon returning 
from a tour of Europe.
  Today, the birthplace of Horatio King remains well preserved and 
cared for by my constituents, Janice and Glenn Davis, as the lovely 
King's Hill Inn.
  Horatio King served Maine well by serving America well. It is 
appropriate that Congress recognize his contributions by naming the 
Post Office in the town of his birth for him and, along with Senator 
Snowe, I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce legislation 
to accomplish this.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 971. A bill to expand the availability of oral health services by 
strengthening the dental workforce in designated underserved areas; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing 
legislation to improve access to oral health care by strengthening the 
dental workforce in our nation's rural and underserved communities.
  Oral and general health are inseparable, and good dental care is 
critical to our overall physical health and well-being. Dental health 
encompasses far more than cavities and gum disease. The recent U.S. 
Surgeon General report Oral Health in America states that ``the mouth 
acts as a mirror of health and disease'' that can help diagnose 
disorders such as diabetes, leukemia, heart disease, or anemia.
  While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 
50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across all 
sectors of our population, particularly among low-income individuals 
and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care. 
While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay

[[Page S5702]]

the progression of dental health problems, an estimated 25 million 
Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a 
consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not 
available in too many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as 
eleven percent of our nation's rural population has never been to a 
dentist.
  This situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce 
is graying and the overall ratio of dentists to population is 
declining. In Maine, for example, there currently are 393 active 
dentists, 241 of whom are 45 or older. More than 20 percent of dentists 
nationwide will retire in the next ten years, and the number of dental 
graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace these retirees.
  As a consequence, Maine, like many States, is currently facing a 
serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas. While there 
is one general practice dentist for every 2,286 people in the Portland 
area, the numbers drop off dramatically in western and northern Maine. 
In Aroostook County, where I am from, there's only one dentist for 
every 5,507 people. Moreover, at a time when tooth decay is the most 
prevalent childhood disease in America, Maine has fewer than ten 
specialists in pediatric dentistry, and most of these are located in 
the southern part of the state.
  This dental workforce shortage is exacerbated by the fact that Maine 
currently does not have a dental school or even a dental residency 
program. Dental schools can provide a critical safety net for the oral 
health needs of a state, and dental education clinics can provide the 
surrounding communities with care that otherwise would be unavailable 
to disadvantaged and underinsured populations. Maine is just one of a 
number of predominantly rural states that lacks this important 
component of a dental safety net.
  Maine, like many States, is exploring a number of innovative ideas 
for increasing access to dental care in underserved areas. In an effort 
to supplement and encourage these efforts, we are introducing 
legislation today to establish a new State grant program designed to 
improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. 
The legislation authorizes $50 million over 5 years for grants to 
States to help them develop innovative dental workforce development 
programs specific to their individual needs.
  States could use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For 
example, they could use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment 
programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They could also 
use them to provide grants and low- or no-interest loans to help 
practitioners to establish or expand practices in these underserved 
areas. States, like Maine, that do not have a dental school could use 
the funds to establish a dental residency program. Other States might 
want to use the grant funding to establish or expand community or 
school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental 
clinics.

  To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States could 
also use the funds for placement and support of dental students, 
residents, and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they could use the 
grant funds for continuing dental education, including distance-based 
education, and practice support through teledentistry.
  Other programs that could be funded through the grants include: 
community-based prevention services such as water fluoridation and 
dental sealant programs; school programs to encourage children to go 
into oral health or science professions; the establishment or expansion 
of a State dental office to coordinate oral health and access issues; 
and any other activities that are determined to be appropriate by the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  The National Health Service Corps is helping to meet the oral health 
needs of underserved communities by placing dentists and dental 
hygienists in some of America's most difficult-to-place inner city, 
rural, and frontier areas. Unfortunately, however, the number of 
dentists and dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the 
National Health Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total 
identified need. According to the Surgeon General, only about 6 percent 
of the dental need in America's rural and underserved communities is 
currently being met by the National Health Service Corps.
  In my State, approximately 173,000 Mainers live in designated dental 
health professional shortage areas. While the National Health Service 
Corps estimates that it will take 33 dental clinicians to meet this 
need, it currently has only three serving in my State.
  The bill we are introducing today would make some needed improvements 
in this critically important program so that it can better respond to 
our nation's oral health needs.
  First, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
develop and implement a plan for increasing the participation of 
dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health Service Corps 
scholarship and loan repayment programs.
  It would also allow National Health Service Corps scholarship and 
loan repayment program recipients to fulfill their commitment on a 
part-time basis. Some small rural communities may not have sufficient 
populations to support a full-time dentist or dental hygienist. This 
would give the National Health Service Corps additional flexibility to 
meet the needs of these communities. Moreover, some practitioners may 
find part-time service more attractive to them. This particularly may 
be the case for a retired dentist who may want to practice only part-
time, allowing this feasibility could in turn improve both recruitment 
and retention in these communities.
  Last year, after a 6-year hiatus, the National Health Service Corps 
began a two-year pilot program to award scholarships to dental 
students.
  This is a step in the right direction, however, these scholarships 
are only being awarded to students attending certain dental schools, 
not one of which is located in New England. Moreover, the pilot project 
requires the participating dental schools to encourage Corps dental 
scholars to practice in communities near their educational 
institutions. The problem is obvious. If none of these programs are in 
New England, and yet there is a requirement that the dentists 
participating in these programs practice in the surrounding 
communities, this is of no benefit to a State such as Maine that does 
not have a dental school and does not have a qualifying program. As a 
consequence, this program will do nothing at all to help relieve the 
dental shortage in Maine and other areas of New England.
  The legislation we are introducing today would address this problem 
by expanding the National Health Service Corps Pilot Scholarship 
Program so that dental students attending any of the 55 American dental 
schools can apply and require that placements for these scholars be 
based strictly on community need, not on whether or not they surround 
the dental school.
  It would also improve the process for designating dental health 
professional shortage areas and ensure that the criteria for making 
such designations provide a more accurate reflection of oral health 
needs, particularly in our rural areas where the problem is most acute.
  And finally, taxing the scholarships and stipends of students 
adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the 
National Health Service Corps and to provide health care services in 
underserved communities. Our legislation would, therefore, exclude from 
Federal income tax the fees and related educational expenses to 
individuals who are participating in the National Health Service Corps 
scholarship and loan repayment programs.
  The Dental Health Improvement Act will make critically important oral 
health care services more accessible in our Nation's rural and 
underserved communities. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
supportin this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that letters 
endorsing my bill from the American Dental Association and the American 
Dental Education Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  American Dental Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 2001.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American Dental 
     Association and our 144,000 member dentists, I am delighted 
     to endorse

[[Page S5703]]

     the ``Dental Health Improvement Act,'' which you introduced 
     today. The Association is proud that the oral health of 
     Americans continues to improve, and that Americans have 
     access to the best oral health care in the world.
       Having said that, we agree that dental care has not reached 
     every corner of American society to the extent it has reached 
     the majority of Americans. For those Americans who are unable 
     to pay for care, and those with special needs, such as 
     disabled individuals, those with congenital conditions, and 
     non-ambulatory patients, obtaining dental care can be 
     difficult.
       Your legislation recognizes several of these problems and 
     goes a long way towards addressing them in a targeted and 
     meaningful way. The section on grant proposals offers states 
     the opportunity to be innovative in their approaches to 
     address specific geographical dental workforce issues. You 
     recognize the need to provide incentives to increase faculty 
     recruitment in accredited dental training institutions, and 
     your support for increasing loan repayment and scholarship 
     programs will provide the appropriate incentives to increase 
     the dental workforce in ``safety net'' organizations.
       The ADA is very grateful for your leadership on these 
     issues. Thank you for introducing this legislation. We want 
     to continue to work with you on dental access issues in 
     general and on this legislation as it moves through the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert M. Anderton,
     D.D.S., J.D., LL.M., President.
                                  ____

                                                   American Dental


                                        Education Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2001.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins, I am writing on behalf of the dental 
     education community to commend you for developing and 
     introducing the Dental Health Improvement Act. This 
     legislation, when enacted into law, will expand the 
     availability of oral health care services for the nation's 
     underserved populations, strengthen the dental workforce, as 
     well as maintain the ability of dental schools to produce the 
     necessary manpower to provide oral health care to all 
     Americans.
       The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) represents 
     the nation's 55 dental schools, as well as hospital-based 
     dental and advanced dental education programs, allied dental 
     programs and schools, dental research institutions, and the 
     faculty and students at these institutions. ADEA's member 
     schools are dedicated to providing the highest quality 
     education to their students, conducting research and 
     providing oral health care services to Americans from 
     medically unserved and underserved areas, the majority of 
     whom are uninsured or who are from low-income families. 
     Recent downward trends in student enrollment and a growing 
     shortage in dental faculty have caused ADEA serious concern 
     about our ability to fully and competently address these 
     responsibilities.
       Therefore, I was delighted to see that the Dental Health 
     Improvement Act directly responds to many of these concerns. 
     If implemented, the Act would expand access to oral health 
     care to thousands of Americans for the first time. When 
     enacted, the provisions of the bill can be instrumental in 
     helping the more than 31 million Americans living in ares 
     that lack access to adequate oral health care services. It 
     can provide much needed help to dental education institutions 
     as we seek to address faculty shortages.
       As you know, dental education institutions face a major 
     crisis in the graying of its faculty which threatens the 
     quality of dental education, oral, dental and craniofacial 
     research, and ultimately will adversely impact the health of 
     all Americans. Currently, there are approximately 400 faculty 
     vacancies. Retirements are expected to accelerate in both 
     private practice as well as teaching faculties in the 
     nation's 55 dental schools. There is a significant decrease 
     in the number of men and women choosing careers in dentistry, 
     teaching and research. Your personal experience in Maine is a 
     perfect example.
       Educational debt has increased, affecting both career 
     choices and practice location. Your bill will provide funds 
     to help with recruitment and retention efforts and helps 
     expand dental residency training programs to the 27 states 
     that do not currently have dental schools.
       Also important are the incentives you have proposed to 
     expand or establish community-based dental facilities linked 
     with dental education institutions. The need for this is 
     obvious. More than two-thirds of patients visiting dental 
     school clinics are members of families whose annual income is 
     estimated to be $15,000 or below. About half of these 
     patients are on Medicare or Medicaid, while more than a third 
     have no insurance coverage or government assistance program 
     to help them pay for their dental care.
       Dental academic institutions are committed to their patient 
     care mission, not only by improving the management and 
     efficiency of patient centered care delivery at the dental 
     school, but through increasing affiliations with and use of 
     satellite clinics. All dental schools maintain at least one 
     dental clinic on-site, and approximately 70% of U.S. dental 
     schools have school-sponsored satellite clinics. Delivering 
     patient care in diverse settings demonstrates professional 
     responsibility to the oral health of the public.
       Dental schools and other academic dental institutions 
     provide oral health to underserved and disadvantaged 
     populations. Yet more than 11 percent of the nation's rural 
     population has never been to see a dentist. This bill can 
     have a positive impact on this population by establishing 
     access to oral health care at community-based dental 
     facilities and consolidated health centers that are linked to 
     dental schools. 100 million Americans presently do not have 
     access to fluoridated water. The bill provides for community-
     based prevention services such as fluoride and sealants that 
     can cause a dramatic change for nearly a third of the 
     nation's population.
       Thank you again for taking such a leadership role in the 
     area of oral health. Please be assured that ADEA looks 
     forward to working closely with you to bring the far-reaching 
     potential of the Dental Health Improvement Act to fruition.
           Sincerely,
                                            Richard W. Valachovic,
                               D.M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director.

  Ms. COLLINS. Finally, Mr. President, I thank my principal cosponsor 
of this legislation, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, for his 
contributions to this bill. We found that Maine and Wisconsin have many 
similar problems in ensuring that there is an adequate supply of 
dentists in our more rural parts of our State.
  It is our hope that this legislation will be considered and enacted 
this year.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from 
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Dental Health Improvement Act. 
This legislation will improve access to dental services by 
strengthening the deal workforce in under-served areas.
  While the scope of the dental access problem is very wide reaching, 
this legislation takes an important step in the right direction by 
improving the dental workforce in under-served areas.
  According to the Surgeon General, an estimated 25 million Americans 
live in areas lacking adequate dental care services, and as many as 11 
percent of our Nation's rural population have never been to a dentist.
  This problem will only get worse since more than 20 percent of 
dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental 
graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace these retirees. While 
dentists have increased their productivity, they are still distribution 
problems in specific geographic areas.
  For too long, oral health has been overlooked and excluded from 
important public policy discussions of how to improve health and health 
care around the country. Some contend that oral health care has been a 
lower priority because advances in dentistry--most notably the expanded 
use of sealants and fluoridated water--are such that we are nearly a 
``cavity free society.'' Yet the truth is that while oral health has 
certainly improved dramatically among those who are insured, and those 
who have reliable access to a dentist, there is a tragic disparity in 
health status between the haves and the have nots.
  This disparity between the poor and everyone else exists in general 
medical health measures, such as infant mortality, low birth weight, 
blood lead levels and so on. But what I have learned since I first 
became interested in this issue is that the disparity is disturbingly 
stark in oral health.
  Surgeon General David Satcher framed this issue well at his May 2000 
release of his report, Oral Health in America, that ``Tooth decay 
remains the single most common chronic disease of childhood--five times 
more common than asthma.''
  While this fact is certainly true--that the prevalence of dental 
disease remains high among children--its burden within the population 
of US children has shifted dramatically.
  I would like to make sure that my colleagues are aware of this 
horrifying statistic that helps to outline the scope of the problem: 80 
percent of dental disease is found in the poorest 25 percent of 
children.
  This figure helps to illustrate the broad scope of the problem. And 
we all know that the problem is even more disturbing when we look at 
the ways these vulnerable children suffer from lack of dental care.
  Preschoolers living in poverty have twice the odds of having decaying 
teeth, twice the extent of decay when they have disease, and twice the 
pain experience of their most affluent peers.
  These children are already at a disadvantage in so many ways. And 
just

[[Page S5704]]

the most basic dental care could make a difference in their lives. But 
our health care system allows this problem to fall through the cracks.
  Over the past few years these and similar statistics have been 
chronicled by numerous entities including the Surgeon General, the 
General Accounting Office, and the National Institutes of Health.
  This legislation will help strengthen the dental workforce that 
delivers vital oral health care services by improving the workforce in 
under-served areas. By providing States and communities with sufficient 
flexibility to address the unique needs of their under-served areas, I 
believe that this legislation will take an effective approach to 
meeting the needs of communities in Wisconsin and across the Nation.
  The first part of this legislation would establish a new State-based 
grant program to help states explore innovative ideas for increasing 
access to dental care in under-served areas.
  This grant program would be directed through the Health Resources and 
Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services 
and support the efforts of States to develop and implement innovative 
programs to address the dental workforce shortage that are appropriate 
to their individual needs.
  For example, States could tailor loan forgiveness and repayment 
programs for dentists practicing in areas designated as dental health 
professional shortage areas by either the Federal Government or the 
State.
  This program could also help with recruitment and retention efforts 
by providing grants or low interest loans to help practitioners in 
designated dental health professional shortage areas equip a dental 
office or share in the overhead costs of an operation.
  The second component of our legislation would increase participation 
of the dental workforce in the National Health Service Corps.
  According to the U.S. Surgeon General, the number of dentists and 
dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the National Health 
Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total identified need: 
only about 6 percent of the dental need is currently being met by this 
program, and outreach and development are critical to future 
opportunities for strengthening the dental workforce in designated 
under-served areas.
  Our legislation would develop and implement a plan for increasing the 
participation of dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health 
Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs and report back 
to Congress on their progress after three years.
  This legislation follows a series of recommendations by the American 
Dental Association and the American Dental Educators Association, who 
both strongly support this legislation.
  I hope my colleagues will join the Senator from Maine and me in our 
ongoing efforts to increase access to dental care and promote greater 
oral health.
  We must change America's approach to oral health, especially when it 
comes to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities--low 
income children. These kids deserve quality dental care. Right now, too 
many kids are suffering. It is my hope that Congress will work on a 
bipartisan basis to promote greater oral health.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 972. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 
electric reliability, enhance transmission infrastructure, and to 
facilitate access to the electric transmission grid; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that 
will add stability to the Nation's electric power grid. I am pleased to 
be joined by Senators, Breaux, Thompson, and Jeffords in this effort 
that reflects a comprise that was reached last year by the investor 
owned and municipal electric power generators. Identical legislation 
has been introduced in the House, H.R. 1459.
  In the past year, there has been a great deal of controversy over the 
concept of electric deregulation because of the chaos that has occurred 
in California. Unfortunately, California is not a useful model of a 
deregulated environment because California only deregulated the 
wholesale part of the industry while retaining price controls at the 
retail level. Coupled with the State's failure to build new generation 
in more than 10 years, the California model was bound to collapse.
  However, I believe that the successes we have seen in deregulating 
electricity, most notably in states like Pennsylvania, suggest that 
ultimately the entire industry will be deregulated and consumers of 
electric power will see significant benefits from such deregulation. In 
order to facilitate the day when competition comes to the industry, we 
must update the tax laws that were written in day when electricity was 
a regulated utility.
  One of the major problems that the current tax rules create is to 
undermine the efficiency of the entire electric system in a deregulated 
environment because these rules effectively preclude public power 
entities from participating in State open access restructuring plans, 
without jeopardizing the exempt status of their bonds.
  No one wants to see bonds issued to finance public power become 
retroactively taxable because a municipality chooses to participate in 
a state open access plan. That would cause havoc in the financial 
markets and could undermine the financial stability of many 
municipalities.
  Our legislation resolves this problem by allowing municipal systems 
to elect to terminate the issuance of new tax exempt bonds for 
generation facilities in return for grandfathering existing bonds.
  Our bill also modifies current rules regarding the treatment of 
nuclear decommissioning costs to make certain that utilities will have 
the resources to meet future costs and clarifies the tax treatment of 
the funds, if a nuclear facility is sold. The bill also provides tax 
relief for utilities that spin off or sell transmission facilities to 
independent participants in FERC approved regional transmission 
organizations.
  This bill will not resolve all of the tax issues surrounding the 
deregulation of the industry. One participant in the industry, the tax-
exempt cooperatives also have tax problems associated with 
deregulation--they may not participate in wheeling power through their 
lines because of concern that they will violate the so-called 85-15 
test which could endanger their tax exempt status. It is my hope that 
the coops will sit down with the other utilities and reach an accord so 
that when we consider this legislation, the coops will be included in 
the tax bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 973. A bill to expedite relief provided under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act for commercial fishery failure 
in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, to improve fishery management 
and enforcement in that fishery, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my good 
friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing the 
Pacific Coast Commercial Fishery Preservation Act of 2001.
  The West Coast groundfish fishery is in crisis, and many fishermen 
are facing bankruptcy. This legislation will help fishermen get through 
the crisis, and move the fishery toward a more sustainable future.
  Sustainable management of this resource is long overdue and in 
January 2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast 
groundfish fishery a disaster. This bill will put the right number of 
fishers out there, at the right time, catching the right number of 
fish.
  Catching the right number of fish should mean using the fish that are 
caught. Fish that are caught in excess of a fisher's trip limit are 
called ``regulatory discards'' or ``overages,'' and thousands of pounds 
of fish are wasted every year when they are thrown overboard. This bill 
authorizes fishermen to retain those extra fish and donate them to 
charitable organizations.
  The right number of fishers is key to a sustainable fishery. There 
are currently too many fishers in the West Coast groundfish fishery to 
sustain the resource. This bill authorizes the Secretary to administer 
and implement a

[[Page S5705]]

capacity reduction or ``buyback'' plan to ease the transition to the 
right number of fishers. In a survey distributed by the author of the 
buyback plan, 70 percent of recipients completed and returned their 
survey and a majority of them were interested in participating in the 
buyback program. A buyback plan has been developed by Oregonians, in 
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, and this bill incorporates key elements of 
it.
  This is not a Federal handout. Half the funding will come from the 
industry and half from the Federal government. The industry portion 
will be a government-backed loan which will be repaid by the fishers 
who stay. The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements in 
California, Washington and Oregon to collect the fees that will be used 
to repay the industry portion of the buyback fund.
  Another way we seek to ease the transition away from fishing is 
through reform of the Capital Construction Fund. Currently, the fund 
allows fishers to put pre-tax funds aside for the construction of a new 
boat, or for upgrading their old one. It was effective in building 
America's fishing fleets, but in these days of dwindling stocks and 
fisheries disasters it is crucial that the fisheries have an 
alternative use for their money, such as retirement. This bill amends 
the Merchant Marine Act and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds 
currently trapped in the Capital Construction Fund to be rolled over 
into a retirement account without adverse consequences to either 
taxpayers or the account holders.
  Ultimately, sustainable fisheries are a result of government 
regulation and management. When federal management fails, the 
government has a responsibility to help fishers and their families in a 
timely fashion. It has taken 18 months for the recent fishery disaster 
funding to hit Oregon. When you are an out-of-work groundfisher, 18 
months is way too long to wait. This bill requires the Secretary of 
Commerce to recommend legislative or administrative changes to the 
existing law that would enable disaster funding to reach fishers more 
expeditiously.
  This plan is supported by the West Coast Seafood Processors, the 
Fishermen's Marketing Association, the Pacific Federation of Fishermen, 
the Pacific Conservation Council, and the Pacific States Marine 
Fisheries Commission.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 973

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pacific Coast Groundfish 
     Fishery Preservation Act''.

     SEC. 2 PILOT PROJECT FOR CHARITABLE DONATION OF BYCATCH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall initiate a 
     pilot project under which fishermen in a commercial fishery 
     covered by the West Coast groundfish fishery are permitted to 
     donate bycatch, or regulatory discards, of fish to charitable 
     organizations rather than discard them. The pilot project 
     shall incorporate a means, through the requirement of on-
     vessel observers or other safeguards, of ensuring that the 
     opportunity to donate such fish does not encourage or permit 
     the evasion of pre-vessel trip limits, total allowable catch 
     limits, or other fishery management plan measures.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Initiation.--The Secretary shall notify the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, within 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act and before the 
     pilot project is implemented, of--
       (A) the fishing season in which the pilot project will be 
     conducted; and
       (B) the period during which the pilot project will be 
     conducted.
       (2) Follow-up.--Within 90 days after the pilot project 
     terminates the Secretary shall submit to the Committee a 
     report containing findings with respect to the pilot project 
     and the Secretary's analysis of the ramifications of the 
     pilot project based on those findings.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR PACIFIC COAST 
                   GROUNDFISH FISHERY.

       The Secretary shall report to the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation no later than 45 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act the action or actions 
     taken under section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) to 
     provide disaster relief to fishing communities affected by 
     the commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast 
     groundfish fishery. The Secretary shall include in the report 
     any recommendations the Secretary deems appropriate for 
     additional legislation or changes in existing law that would 
     enable the Department of Commerce to respond more 
     expeditiously in the future to fisheries disasters resulting 
     from commercial fishery failures.

     SEC. 4. CAPACITY REDUCTION IN THE PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH 
                   FISHERY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall, after 
     notice and an opportunity for public comment, adopt 
     regulations to implement a fishing capacity reduction plan 
     for the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery under section 312(b) 
     of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)) that--
       (1) has been developed in consultation with affected 
     parties whose participation in the plan is required for its 
     successful implementation;
       (2) will obtain the maximum sustained reduction in fishing 
     capacity at the least cost through the use of a reverse 
     auction process in which vessels and permits are purchased;
       (3) will not expand the size or scope of the commercial 
     fishery failure in that fishery or into other fisheries or 
     other geographic regions;
       (4) except as otherwise specifically provided in this 
     section, meets the requirements of that section; and
       (5) incorporates the components described in subsection (c) 
     of this section.
       (b) Expedited Adoption of Plan.--In carrying out subsection 
     (a), the Secretary--
       (1) shall publish notice in the Federal Register within 30 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act of 
     implementation of the fishing capacity reduction plan;
       (2) provide for public comment for a period of 60 days 
     after publication; and
       (3) adopt final regulations to implement the plan within 45 
     days after the close of the public comment period under 
     paragraph (2).
       (c) Plan Components.--The fishery capacity reduction plan 
     shall--
       (1) provide for a significant reduction in the fishing 
     capacity in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries;
       (2) permanently revoke all State and Federal fishery 
     licenses, fishery permits, area and species endorsements, and 
     any other fishery privileges for West Coast groundfish, 
     Pacific pink shrimp, Dungeness crab, and Pacific salmon 
     (troll permits only) issued to a vessel or vessels (or to 
     persons on the basis of their operation or ownership of that 
     vessel or vessels) for which a Pacific Coast groundfish 
     fisheries reduction permit is issued under section 
     600.1011(b) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (3) ensure that the Secretary of Transportation is notified 
     of each vessel for which a reduction permit is surrendered 
     and revoked under the program, with a request that such 
     Secretary permanently revoke the fishery endorsement of each 
     such vessel and refuse permission to transfer any such vessel 
     to a foreign flag under subsection (f) of this section;
       (4) ensure that vessels removed from the Pacific Coast 
     groundfish fisheries under the program are made permanently 
     ineligible to participate in any fishery worldwide, and that 
     the owners of such vessels contractually agree that such 
     vessels will operate only under the United States flag or be 
     scrapped as a reduction vessel pursuant to section 
     600.1011(c) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (5) ensure that vessels removed from the Pacific Coast 
     groundfish fisheries, the owners of such vessels, and the 
     holders of fishery permits for such vessels forever 
     relinquish any claim associated with such vessel, permits, 
     and any catch history associated with such vessel or permits 
     that could qualify such vessel, vessel owner, or permit 
     holder for any present or future limited access system 
     fishing permits in the United States fisheries based on such 
     vessel, permits, or catch history; and
       (6) notwithstanding section 1111(b) of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1279f(b)(4)), establish a repayment 
     period for the reduction loan of not less than 30 years.
       (d) Funding for Buyback of Vessels and Permits.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be available to the Secretary 
     to complete the purchase of vessels and permits under the 
     fishery capacity reduction plan the sum of $50,000,000, of 
     which--
       (A) $25,000,000 shall be from amounts appropriated to the 
     Secretary for this purpose (the appropriation of which is 
     hereby authorized for fiscal year 2002, with any amounts not 
     expended in fiscal year 2002 to remain available until 
     expended); and
       (B) $25,000,000 shall be from an industry fee system 
     established under subsection (e).
       (2) Advance of industry fee portion.--The industry fee 
     portion under paragraph (1)(B) for fiscal year 2002 and 
     thereafter shall be financed by a reduction loan under 
     sections 1111 and 1112 of title XI of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1279f and 1279g).
       (e) Industry Fees.--
       (1) In general.--As part of the fishery capacity reduction 
     plan, the Secretary shall establish an industry fee system 
     under section 312(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(d)) to 
     generate revenue to repay the loan provided under subsection 
     (d)(2).
       (2) Allocation of fees.--The Secretary shall allocate the 
     fees payable under the industry fee system among--

[[Page S5706]]

       (A) holders of Pacific Coast groundfish permits,
       (B) holders of Washington, Oregon, and California pink 
     shrimp fishing permits,
       (C) holders of Washington, Oregon, and California salmon 
     trolling permits, and
       (D) holders of Washington, Oregon, and California Dungeness 
     crab fishing permits,

     so that the percentage of the revenue generated by the fee 
     system from holders of each kind of permit will correspond to 
     the percentage of the total amount paid under buyback program 
     for that kind of permit.
       (f) Duties of Secretary of Transportation.--
       (1) The Secretary of Transportation shall, upon 
     notification and request by the Secretary, for each vessel 
     identified in such notification and request--
       (A) permanently revoke any fishery endorsement issued to 
     such vessel under section 12108 of title 46, United States 
     Code; and
       (B) refuse to grant the approval required under section 
     9(c)(2) of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 808(c)(2)) 
     for the placement of such vessel under foreign registry or 
     the operation of such vessel under the authority of a foreign 
     country.
       (2) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, adopt final regulations not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, to prohibit 
     any vessel for which a reduction permit is surrendered and 
     revoked under the fishing capacity reduction program required 
     by this section from engaging in fishing activities on the 
     high seas or under the jurisdiction of any foreign country 
     while operating under the United States flag.
       (g) Regulatory Flexibility.--Any requirements of the 
     Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or 
     any Executive order that would, in the opinion of the 
     Secretary, prevent the Secretary from meeting the deadlines 
     set forth in this section shall not apply to the fishing 
     capacity reduction program or the promulgation of regulations 
     to implement such program required by this section.

     SEC. 5. COLLECTION OF INDUSTRY FEES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the States of California, Oregon, and 
     Washington to collect program fees paid under the system 
     established under section 4(e).
       (b) Withholding Fee From Purchase Price.--The fee for each 
     vessel required to pay a program fee under that system shall 
     be deducted by the first ex-vessel fish purchaser from the 
     proceeds otherwise payable to the seller and forwarded to the 
     appropriate State at the same time and in the same manner as 
     other fees or taxes are forwarded to that State.
       (c) State To Collect and Forward Fees.--Upon receipt of 
     program fees forwarded by fish purchasers under subsection 
     (b), the State shall forward the fees to the Secretary in the 
     manner provided for in the agreement established under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Fish-Processing Vessels Treated as Purchasers.--A 
     vessel which--
       (1) both harvests and processes fish; or
       (2) receives fish from a harvesting vessel and processes 
     that fish on board, shall be considered to be the first ex-
     vessel fish purchaser with respect to the fish processed 
     on the vessel and shall forward the appropriate fees to 
     the appropriate State at the same time and in the same 
     manner as other fees or taxes are forwarded to that State.

     SEC. 6 AMENDMENT OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936, TO EXPAND 
                   PURPOSES OF CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 607(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1177(a)) is amended by striking ``of 
     this section.'' and inserting ``of this section. Any 
     agreement entered into under this section may be modified for 
     the purpose of encouraging the sustainability of the 
     fisheries of the United States by making the termination and 
     withdrawal of a capital construction fund a qualified 
     withdrawal if done in exchange for the retirement of the 
     related commercial fishing vessel and related commercial 
     fishing permits.''.
       (b) New Qualified Withdrawals.--
       (1) Amendments to merchant marine act, 1936.--Section 
     607(f)(1) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1177(f)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for:'' and inserting ``for--'';
       (B) by striking ``vessel,'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``vessel;'';
       (C) by striking ``vessel, or'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``vessel;'';
       (D) by striking ``vessel.'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``vessel;''; and
       (E) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) the payment of an industry fee authorized by the 
     fishing capacity reduction program under section 312(b) of 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b));
       ``(E) in the case of any such person or shareholder for 
     whose benefit such fund was established or any shareholder of 
     such person, a rollover contribution (within the meaning of 
     section 408(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to 
     such person's or shareholder's individual retirement plan (as 
     defined in section 7701(a)(37) of such Code); or
       ``(F) the payment to a person or corporation terminating a 
     capital construction fund for whose benefit the fund was 
     established and retiring related commercial fishing vessels 
     and permits; and
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The Secretary by regulation shall establish 
     procedures to ensure that any person making a qualified 
     withdrawal authorized under subparagraph (F) retires the 
     related commercial use of fishing vessels and commercial 
     fishery permits.''.
       (2) Amendments to internal revenue code of 1986.--Section 
     7518(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     purposes of qualified withdrawals) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for:'' and inserting
     ``for--'';
       (B) by striking ``vessel, or'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``vessel;'';
       (C) by striking ``vessel.'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``vessel;'';
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) the payment of an industry fee authorized by the 
     fishing capacity reduction program under section 312 of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1861a);
       ``(E) in the case of any person or shareholder for whose 
     benefit such fund was established or any shareholder of such 
     person, a rollover contribution (within the meaning of 
     section 408(d)(3)) to such person's or shareholder's 
     individual retirement plan (as defined in section 
     7701(a)(37)); or
       ``(F) the payment to a person terminating a capital 
     construction fund for whose benefit the fund was established 
     and retiring related commercial fishing vessels and 
     permits.''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:

     ``The Secretary by regulation shall establish procedures to 
     ensure that any person making a qualified withdrawal 
     authorized by subparagraph (F) retires the related commercial 
     use of fishing vessels and commercial fishery permits.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to withdrawals made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 974. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of pharmacist services under part B of the 
Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce 
legislation, known as the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act, 
that will provide for important patient safety and health care quality 
improvements in the Medicare program. This legislation will reform 
Medicare by recognizing qualified pharmacists as health care providers 
within the Medicare program and make available to beneficiaries 
important drug therapy management services that these valuable health 
professionals can and do provide. These services, which are coordinated 
in direct collaboration with physicians and other health care 
professionals as authorized by State law, help patients make the best 
possible use of their medications.
  The members of this body know very well the vital role that today's 
powerful and effective medications play in the maintenance of health 
and well-being of our nation's seniors. The substantial and important 
discussion now underway on how best to craft and implement a 
prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries is an explicit 
recognition of this vital role. But access to the medications, even at 
the most affordable prices possible, is only one part of the equation 
in achieving the kinds of health care outcomes that patients and their 
health care providers desire. That is where today's pharmacists play a 
pivotal role.
  But members of this body may not be as aware of the tremendous 
changes in pharmacy practice and education that have taken place in the 
past decade that have resulted in an expansion of pharmacists' 
capabilities and responsibilities. Fortunately for my office Dr. Brian 
Kaatz, a clinical pharmacist and faculty member of the College of 
Pharmacy at South Dakota State University was able to spend 6 months 
with us here in Washington last year as we studied and evaluated the 
many policy issues and concerns related to a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. In the course of that time it became clear to me and to 
members of my staff that pharmacists are critical in assuring safer and 
more effective medication use by our nation's seniors.
  In addition to the important and continuing responsibility for 
assuring accurate, safe medication dispensing, compounding, and 
counseling, pharmacists now provide a much more comprehensive range of 
clinical, consultative, and educational services. Thirty States, the 
Veterans Administration, and the Indian Health Service, among others, 
all recognize the value of collaborative drug therapy management 
services as a way to provide optimal

[[Page S5707]]

patient care using the specialized education and training of 
pharmacists. Unfortunately, Medicare does not.
  Indeed, payment for prescription drugs in almost all types of health 
plans and programs focuses on payment for the product and the 
associated costs of its distribution to patients. The logical financial 
incentive therefore is to dispense more medications, not fewer. Payment 
to the pharmacist for time spent in reducing the number of medications 
the patient is taking or enhancing the patient's ability to understand 
and more properly use the medications they do need is provided only by 
some forward-thinking payers and programs. Unfortunately, Medicare is 
not among them.
  Access to pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management services 
is particularly important right now, while many Medicare beneficiaries 
are struggling to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for their 
prescription medications. On average, persons aged 65 and older 
currently take 5 or more medications each day. These medications are 
often prescribed by several different physicians for concurrent chronic 
and acute conditions. Recently published research has indicated that 
drug-related problems cost the U.S. health care system as much as $177 
billion each year, an amount equal to the ten-year cost projections for 
some of the more modest Medicare prescription drug coverage proposals 
now being discussed. A substantial portion of this expense is 
preventable through collaborative patient care services provided by 
pharmacists working with patients and their physicians.
  With careful examination of a patient's total drug regimen, 
pharmacists can eliminate unnecessary or counterproductive treatments. 
For example, pharmacists working closely with the health care team can 
identify or prevent duplicate medications, drugs that cancel each other 
out, or combinations that can damage hearts or kidneys. Pharmacists may 
also find that a newer multi-action drug may be exchanged for two older 
drugs or a slightly more expensive drug may be substituted for a less 
expensive alternative that causes side effects and results in the 
patient either taking additional medication or stopping their 
medication with the result that their medical condition worsens.
  The overuse of medications is particularly common in the elderly, who 
tend to have more chronic conditions that call for drug treatment. In 
addition, physiological changes that occur naturally in the aging 
process diminish the body's ability to process medications, increasing 
the likelihood of medication-related complications.
  The pharmacist's specialized training in drug therapy management has 
been demonstrated repeatedly to improve the quality of care patients 
receive and to control health care costs associated with medication 
complications. As a precursor to a prescription drug benefit, it makes 
sense to take this proven initial step to improve the medication use 
process. This will help Medicare beneficiaries immediately by ensuring 
that each precious dollar spent out-of-pocket is spent wisely on a 
streamlined and effective drug therapy regimen. This is an important 
benefit that we can deliver now while Congress works to address the 
more difficult economic and political issues impacting a prescription 
drug benefit.
  In addition, the quality improvement and cost-control resulting from 
this benefit establishes a critical infrastructure element for whatever 
Medicare prescription drug benefit is ultimately put in place. By 
supporting pharmacists who are working to improve the efficacy and 
cost-effectiveness of medication regimens, as well as reducing 
preventable medication-related complications and adverse drug events 
that result in unnecessary health care expenditures, we can enhance the 
prospects of achieving an affordable Medicare drug benefit that will 
bring real value to beneficiaries and taxpayers alike.
  Recognition of qualified pharmacists as providers within the Medicare 
program is the logical and very affordable first step in establishing 
the essential infrastructure of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. 
As the Institute of Medicine report ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer 
Health System'' stated: ``Because of the immense variety and complexity 
of medications now available, it is impossible for nurses and doctors 
to keep up with all of the information required for safe medication 
use. The pharmacist has become an essential resource . . . and thus 
access to his or her expertise must be possible at all times.'' This 
legislation will empower Medicare to catch up on this important health 
care quality issue. Pharmacists' collaborative drug therapy management 
services can and will make a real difference in the lives of Medicare 
beneficiaries. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
give this proposal their serious consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Specter, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 975. A bill to improve environmental policy by providing 
assistance for State and tribal land use planning, to promote improved 
quality of life, regionalism, and sustainable economic development, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community 
Character Act of 2001, together with Senators Bennett, Specter, 
Jeffords, Cleland, Levin, Bingaman, and Lieberman. This legislation 
provides Federal assistance to States and Indian tribes to create or 
update statewide or tribal land use planning legislation. Up-to-date 
planning legislation empowers States and local governments to spur 
economic development, protect the environment, coordinate 
transportation and infrastructure needs, and preserve our communities.
  America has grown from East to West, as well as from an urban setting 
to suburban one. The Nation's sweeping growth can be attributed to many 
things, including a strong economy and transportation and technology 
advancements that allow people to live greater distances from work. Due 
in part to inadequate planning, strip malls and retail development 
catering to the automobile have become the trademark of the American 
landscape.
  In the wake of the post-World War II building boom, my hometown of 
Warwick, RI had experienced the type of development that too often 
offends the eye and saps our economic strength. Due to a lack of 
planning, incremental and haphazard development occurred through a 
mixture of incompatible zoning decisions. Industrial and commercial 
facilities and residential homes were frequently and inappropriately 
sited next to each other. The local newspaper described the city as a 
``suburban nightmare''. However, we learned that proper approaches to 
planning would help every state meet its challenges, whether it is 
preserving limited open space in the East or protecting precious 
drinking water supplies in the West.
  The Community Character Act will benefit each community and 
neighborhood by providing $25 million per year to States and tribes for 
the purpose of land use planning. The bill recognizes that land use 
planning is appropriately vested at the state and local levels, and 
accords States and tribes flexibility in using their money. 
Importantly, the legislation also recognizes that the Federal 
Government should play a role in financing these activities. Through 
enactment of transportation, housing, environmental, energy, and 
economic development laws and requirements, Congress has created a 
demand for state and local planning. In fact, the Community Character 
Act should be viewed as providing the federal payment for an unfunded 
mandate whose account is overdue.
  The Senators who have sponsored this bill represent geographically 
diverse states, from Rhode Island to New Mexico and from Georgia to 
Utah. This bipartisan bill represents a small investment in our 
communities, but one that will yield large dividends to communities in 
each corner of the nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary of the 
bill, and letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 975

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S5708]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Character Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) inadequate land use planning at the State and tribal 
     levels contributes to--
       (A) increased public and private capital costs for public 
     works infrastructure development;
       (B) environmental degradation;
       (C) weakened regional economic development; and
       (D) loss of community character;
       (2) land use planning is rightfully within the jurisdiction 
     of State, tribal, and local governments;
       (3) comprehensive land use planning and community 
     development should be supported by Federal, State, and tribal 
     governments;
       (4) States and tribal governments should provide a proper 
     climate and context through legislation in order for 
     comprehensive land use planning, community development, and 
     environmental protection to occur;
       (5)(A) many States and tribal governments have outmoded 
     land use planning legislation; and
       (B) many States and tribal governments are undertaking 
     efforts to update and reform land use planning legislation;
       (6) the Federal Government and States should support the 
     efforts of tribal governments to develop and implement land 
     use plans to improve environmental protection, housing 
     opportunities, and socioeconomic conditions for Indian 
     tribes; and
       (7) the coordination of use of State and tribal resources 
     with local land use plans requires additional planning at the 
     State and tribal levels.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Land use plan.--The term ``land use plan'' means a plan 
     for development of an area that recognizes the physical, 
     environmental, economic, social, political, aesthetic, and 
     related factors of the area.
       (2) Land use planning legislation.--The term ``land use 
     planning legislation'' means a statute, regulation, executive 
     order, or other action taken by a State or tribal government 
     to guide, regulate, or assist in the planning, regulation, 
     and management of--
       (A) environmental resources;
       (B) public works infrastructure;
       (C) regional economic development;
       (D) current and future development practices; and
       (E) other activities related to the pattern and scope of 
     future land use.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of 
     Commerce for Economic Development.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.
       (5) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government'' 
     means the tribal government of an Indian tribe (as defined in 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)).

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS TO UPDATE 
                   LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     award grants to States and tribal governments eligible for 
     funding under subsection (b) to promote comprehensive land 
     use planning at the State, tribal, and local levels.
       (2) Grant applications.--
       (A) Submission.--A State or tribal government may submit to 
     the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, an 
     application for a grant under this section to be used for 1 
     or more of the types of projects authorized by subsection 
     (c).
       (B) Approval.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) not less often than annually, complete a review of the 
     applications for grants that are received under this section; 
     and
       (ii) award grants to States and tribal governments that the 
     Secretary determines rank the highest using the ranking 
     criteria specified in paragraph (3).
       (3) Ranking criteria.--In evaluating applications for 
     grants from eligible States and tribal governments under this 
     section, the Secretary shall consider the following criteria:
       (A) As a fundamental priority, the extent to which a State 
     or tribal government has in effect inadequate or outmoded 
     land use planning legislation.
       (B) The extent to which a grant will facilitate development 
     or revision of land use plans consistent with updated land 
     use planning legislation.
       (C) The extent to which development or revision of land use 
     plans will facilitate multistate land use planning.
       (D) The extent to which the area under the jurisdiction of 
     a State or tribal government is experiencing significant 
     growth.
       (E) The extent to which the project to be funded using a 
     grant will protect the environment and promote economic 
     development.
       (F) The extent to which a State or tribal government has 
     committed financial resources to comprehensive land use 
     planning.
       (b) Eligibility.--A State or tribal government shall be 
     eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a) if the State 
     or tribal government demonstrates that the project, or the 
     goal of the project, to be funded by the grant promotes land 
     use planning activities that--
       (1) are comprehensive in nature and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable--
       (A) promote environmental protection (including air and 
     water quality);
       (B) take into consideration--
       (i) public works infrastructure in existence at the time at 
     which the grant is to be made; and
       (ii) future infrastructure needs, such as needs identified 
     in--

       (I) the needs assessments required under sections 516(2) 
     and 518(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1375(2), 1377(b)) and subsections (h) and (i)(4) of 
     section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
     12); and
       (II) the State long-range transportation plan developed 
     under section 135(e) of title 23, United States Code;

       (C) promote sustainable economic development (including 
     regional economic development) and social equity;
       (D) enhance community character;
       (E) conserve historic, scenic, natural, and cultural 
     resources; and
       (F) provide for a range of affordable housing options;
       (2) promote land use plans that contain an implementation 
     element that--
       (A) includes a timetable for action and a definition of the 
     respective roles and responsibilities of agencies, local 
     governments, and other stakeholders;
       (B) is consistent with the capital budget objectives of the 
     State or tribal government; and
       (C) provides a framework for decisions relating to the 
     siting of infrastructure development, including development 
     of utilities and utility distribution systems;
       (3) result in multijurisdictional governmental cooperation, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, particularly in the case 
     of land use plans based on watershed boundaries;
       (4) encourage the participation of the public in the 
     development, adoption, and updating of land use plans;
       (5) provide for the periodic updating of land use plans; 
     and
       (6) include approaches to land use planning that are 
     consistent with established professional land use planning 
     standards.
       (c) Use of Grant Funds.--Grant funds received by a State or 
     tribal government under subsection (a) may be used for a 
     project--
       (1) to carry out, or obtain technical assistance with which 
     to carry out--
       (A) development or revision of land use planning 
     legislation;
       (B) research and development relating to land use plans, 
     and other activities relating to the development of State, 
     tribal, or local land use plans, that result in long-term 
     policy guidelines for growth and development;
       (C) workshops, education of and consultation with 
     policymakers, and participation of the public in the land use 
     planning process; and
       (D) integration of State, regional, tribal, or local land 
     use plans with Federal land use plans;
       (2) to provide funding to units of general purpose local 
     government to carry out land use planning activities 
     consistent with land use planning legislation; or
       (3) to acquire equipment or information technology to 
     facilitate State, tribal, or local land use planning.
       (d) Pilot Projects for Local Governments.--A State may 
     include in its application for a grant under this section a 
     request for additional grant funds with which to assist units 
     of general purpose local government in carrying out pilot 
     projects to carry out land use planning activities consistent 
     with land use planning legislation.
       (e) Amount of Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amount of a grant to a State or tribal government under 
     subsection (a) shall not exceed $1,000,000.
       (2) Additional amount.--The Secretary may award a State up 
     to an additional $100,000 to fund pilot projects under 
     subsection (d).
       (f) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     funded with a grant under subsection (a) shall not exceed 90 
     percent.
       (2) Grants to tribal governments.--The Secretary may 
     increase the Federal share in the case of a grant to a tribal 
     government if the Secretary determines that the tribal 
     government does not have sufficient funds to pay the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project.
       (g) Audits.--
       (1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Commerce may conduct an audit of a portion of the grants 
     awarded under this section to ensure that the grant funds are 
     used for the purposes specified in this section.
       (2) Use of audit results.--The results of an audit 
     conducted under paragraph (1) and any recommendations made in 
     connection with the audit shall be taken into consideration 
     in awarding any future grant under this section to a State or 
     tribal government.
       (3) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Commerce shall submit to Congress a report that 
     provides a description of the management of the program 
     established under this section (including a description of 
     the allocation of grant funds awarded under this section).

[[Page S5709]]

       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006.
       (2) Availability for tribal governments.--Of the amount 
     made available under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, not 
     less than 5 percent shall be available to make grants to 
     tribal governments to the extent that there are sufficient 
     tribal governments that are eligible for funding under 
     subsection (b) and that submit applications.

     SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may develop voluntary 
     educational and informational programs for the use of State, 
     tribal, and local land use planning and zoning officials.
       (b) Types of Programs.--Programs developed under subsection 
     (a) may include--
       (1) exchange of technical land use planning information;
       (2) electronic databases containing data relevant to land 
     use planning;
       (3) other technical land use planning assistance to 
     facilitate access to, and use of, techniques and principles 
     of land use planning; and
       (4) such other types of programs as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Consultation and Cooperation.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out subsection (a) in consultation and cooperation 
     with--
       (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (2) the Secretary of Transportation;
       (3) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (4) the heads of other Federal agencies;
       (5) State, tribal, and local governments; and
       (6) nonprofit organizations that promote land use planning 
     at the State, tribal, and local levels.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
                                  ____


      Community Character Act of 2001--Section-by-Section Summary


                                summary

       The Community Character Act of 2001 seeks to provide much 
     needed funding to State and tribal governments for the 
     development and revision of land use planning tools. Up-to-
     date statewide planning statutes and guidelines will allow 
     state and local governments to meet future growth demands 
     while preserving the economic, natural, cultural, and 
     historic resources of our communities.


                           section by section

     Section 1
       Short Title.--the Community Character Act of 2001.
     Section 2
       Provides Congressional findings regarding the benefits of 
     planning at the State, local, and tribal levels.
     Section 3
       Provides definitions of key terms in the legislation. 
     ``Land use planning legislation'' is defined as a statute, 
     regulation, executive order or other action taken by a State 
     or tribal government to guide, regulate, or assist in the 
     planning, regulation, and management of environmental 
     resources, public works infrastructure, regional economic 
     development, and development practices and other activities 
     related to the pattern and scope of future land use.
     Section 4
       This section authorizes the Economic Development 
     Administration to establish a program to provide grants to 
     States and tribal governments on a competitive basis for the 
     development or revision of land use planning legislation. 
     States and tribal governments are eligible for grants if 
     their land use planning activities promotes certain elements, 
     such as environmental protection, public works 
     infrastructure, and sustainable economic development.
       States and tribes that receive these grants may use them to 
     develop or revise land use planning legislation, conduct 
     research and development relating to land use plans, or 
     funding to local governments to carry out land use planning 
     activities consistent with state planning legislation. This 
     section also provides for local government pilot projects 
     related to land use planning.
       The bill provides $25 million each year for fiscal years 
     2002-2006 and caps grants at $ 1 million ($1.1 million if 
     funding local pilot projects), subject to a 10 percent match. 
     Five percent of the annual authorization is set aside for 
     tribal governments to the extent that there are sufficient 
     eligible applications.
     Section 5
       This section authorizes the Economic Development 
     Administration to provide voluntary educational and 
     informational programs for the use of State, local, and 
     tribal land use planning and zoning officials. The bill 
     authorizes $1 million per year for five years for this 
     purpose.
                                  ____



                                American Planning Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: The American Planning Association is 
     pleased to endorse the Community Character Act of 2001. APA 
     is heartened by the introduction of this legislation and the 
     assistance it would provide to the numerous states and 
     communities struggling with the consequences of change, 
     whether it be growth and development or economic decline. 
     This legislation recognizes that the federal government can, 
     and should, be a constructive partner with those communities 
     seeking innovative solutions to improving local quality of 
     life through better planning and land use. APA, with more 
     than 30,000 members, is the largest private organization 
     working to promote planning for communities that effectively 
     meets the needs of our people, now and in the future.
       Planning is the single most effective way to deal with 
     growth issues facing states and communities. Passage of the 
     Community Character Act is among the most important and 
     beneficial things Congress could do to help promote local 
     solutions to such pressing issues as downtown revitalization, 
     traffic congestion, urban sprawl and open space protection.
       This legislation responds to widespread citizen interest in 
     smart growth by providing critical resources to help state 
     and local political leaders, business and environmental 
     interests, and others manage change. In a recent national 
     voter survey, APA found that an overwhelming majority of 
     Americans, regardless of political affiliation, geographic 
     locale, or demographic group, believe Congress should take 
     action to support state and local smart growth initiatives. 
     Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed believe it is 
     important for the 107th Congress to help communities solve 
     problems associated with urban growth. Moreover, three-
     quarters of voters also support providing incentives to help 
     promote smart growth and improve planning.
       The Community Character Act provides vital assistance to 
     meet the serious challenge of reforming outdated planning 
     statutes and supporting planning as the basis for smart 
     growth. Currently, more than half the states are still 
     operating under planning statutes devised in the 1920s. And, 
     even in those states with updated planning laws, communities 
     are struggling to find and implement tools to grow smarter 
     and in ways consistent with the values and vision of the 
     citizens. Thus far in 2001, twenty-seven governors have 
     initiated some type smart growth proposals and there is 
     pending legislative or executive activity related to 
     planning, growth and land use in twenty-two states. This if 
     happening in states as diverse as Oklahoma and New York, 
     Montana and Massachusetts.
       We believe this bill will support an array of state, 
     regional and local efforts to promote improved quality of 
     life, economic development and community livability through 
     better planning. Grants could be used to obtain technical 
     assistance and support for a state's review and 
     implementation of growth and planning laws. Activities such 
     as researching and drafting state policies, conducting 
     workshops, holding public forums, promoting regional 
     cooperation and supporting state planning initiatives would 
     qualify for federal assistance. We also believe provisions 
     allowing grants for acquiring new information technology to 
     facilitate planning, pilot projects to support innovative 
     planning at the local level and the development of technical 
     assistance programs through the Economic Development 
     Administration would provide important and needed assistance 
     for local governments and communities.
       This legislation promotes smart growth principles and 
     encourages states to create or update the framework necessary 
     for good planning. It creates a federal partnership with 
     communities through incentives, not mandates. The bill does 
     not mandate that states implement specific changes but rather 
     seeks to support and inform that process once it is underway. 
     This program is a modest investment that will bring 
     substantial dividends in improving the livability of cities, 
     towns, and neighborhoods throughout the nation.
       The American Planning Association applauds your outstanding 
     leadership and vision in introducing the Community Character 
     Act and urges the Senate to enact this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bruce McClendon,
     President.
                                  ____



                   National Association of Realtors,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: On behalf of its more than 760,000 
     members, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (NAR) 
     supports your introduction of the Community Character Act, 
     which provide grants to assist state governments in 
     developing or updating their land use planning legislation.
       NAR supports this bill because it:
       Recognizes that land use planning is rightfully a State and 
     local government function;
       Provides needed assistance to states and localities to 
     better plan for inevitable growth;
       Requires that planning performed under this Act must 
     provide for housing opportunity and choice and promote 
     affordable housing;
       Promotes improved quality of life, sustainable economic 
     development, and protection of the environment.
       In adopting our Smart Growth principles, NAR recognized 
     that property owners, homebuyers, and REALTORS have 
     a great deal

[[Page S5710]]

     at stake in the debate over livability and growth. 
     REALTORS are outspoken advocates for policies that 
     preserve housing choice and affordability while protecting 
     and improving the quality of the life of our communities.
       It is our experience that when communities have not planned 
     for growth, they may overreact to growth pressures by 
     adopting excessive regulations that distort real estate 
     markets and make homeownership less attainable. Planning in 
     advance to accommodate growth and protect the quality of life 
     is the better approach, and the Community Character Act would 
     promote this needed planning.
       We commend your efforts in introducing the Community 
     Character Act and we look forward to working with you toward 
     its adoption.
           Sincerely,
                                                Lee L. Verstandig,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____



                                    The Trust for Public Land,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Chair Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk 
         Assessment, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
     Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing to advise you of the 
     Trust for Public Land's unqualified support for the Community 
     Character Act of 2001.
       The legislation you are introducing today will provide 
     communities across the nation with an important and adaptive 
     new tool to address the land-use challenges they face. More 
     than ever, states and localities are seeking innovative ways 
     to balance their economic development and environmental 
     protection needs. The Community Character Act will provide 
     much-needed support to the many state and local jurisdictions 
     working to craft this vital balance through their land-use 
     planning processes. This visionary bill aptly recognizes the 
     inextricable links between public infrastructure, private 
     development, and open space preservation, and its 
     competitive-grant approach will allow for appropriate 
     incentive-based federal assistance to state and local 
     planning efforts. The Trust for Public Land particularly 
     appreciates the on-the-ground successes your legislation will 
     spawn through local pilot projects; the inclusion of tribal 
     governments as eligible grant recipients, and the benefits 
     these funds will afford to Indian land management; and the 
     broader effects that enhanced land-use planning will bring to 
     the American landscape.
       We look forward to timely enactment of the Community 
     Character Act, and to hearing from you as to how we might be 
     of assistance in your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Alan Front,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____



                                         Smart Growth America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2001.
     Hon. Lincoln Chafee,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chafee: Smart Growth America would like to 
     commend you on the introduction of the Community Character 
     Act of 2001. We support both the bill and your efforts to 
     assist states, multi-state regions and tribal governments in 
     their efforts to revise their land use planning legislation 
     and develop comprehensive plans.
       Planning for future growth and directing development so 
     that it strengthens existing communities while building upon 
     their physical, cultural and historical assets is integral to 
     smart growth. We applaud your foresight and willingness to 
     help these entities in their ongoing efforts to achieve smart 
     growth by coordinating transportation, housing and education 
     infrastructure investments while conserving historic, scenic 
     and natural resources.
       The Community Character Act makes the federal government a 
     partner with states, regions and tribal governments that want 
     to plan for future growth. We thank you for your leadership 
     and look forward to working with you to pass this timely 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Don Chen,
                                                         Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 976. A bill to provide authorization and funding for the 
enhancement of ecosystems, water supply, and water quality of the State 
of California, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday Congressman Ken Calvert from 
Riverside, CA, and I held a press conference so each of us could 
introduce a bill, Mr. Calvert in the House and I in the Senate.
  This bill I am going to introduce today for reference to committee 
addresses a very complicated and complex problem in California, and 
that is water. It is my very strong belief that the energy crisis that 
we see taking place in California is a forerunner of what is going to 
happen with water.
  The only question is when. California has a population of 34 million 
people. It is bigger than 21 other States and the District of Columbia 
put together. It is expected to grow to 50 million in 20 years.
  Our State has the same water infrastructure that it had in 1970 when 
we were about 16 million people, and every year California grows from 
700,000 to 1 million people. It was 800,000 this past year.
  We are the sixth largest economy, not in the Nation, but in the 
world. We are the No. 1 agricultural producing State in the Nation. We 
are the leading producer of dairy products, wine and grapes, 
strawberries, almonds, lettuce, tomatoes, and the list goes on and on. 
All of these need water.
  We are a growing high-tech State with an increasing need for access 
to high-quality water. We have more endangered species than any other 
State except Hawaii. And, of course, California, again, has this large 
population. Our water needs are tremendous. So we need to get ready for 
the future, and we need to do this in an environmentally sensitive way.
  If there is one lesson we can learn from California's energy crisis, 
it is that the time to address a crisis is not while it is happening 
but before it happens. California is now struggling to build more 
powerplants while also doing everything possible to reduce demand 
through increased efficiency and conservation. But because we started 
so late, we are likely going to have some serious problems this summer, 
and that is why it is even more important that we fix the water problem 
before it, too, becomes a crisis.
  Ecosystem restoration, water conservation, and improved efficiency 
can be combined with new environmentally responsible off-stream 
storage. This would allow us to improve the ecosystem and store water 
from the wet years and use it in the dry years to benefit people, the 
environment, and farmers.
  I began writing this bill last December with the aim of finding 
something to which all of the major stakeholders could agree--the large 
urban water users, the city of San Jose, the city of Los Angeles, San 
Diego, San Francisco, all of the agricultural water contractors, and a 
myriad of environmental leaders.
  I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, after 7 years of 
trying, to get them all on the same page, let alone the same line. So 
either we do nothing and sit back and wait for a water crisis or we try 
to do the moderate, the prudent, and the effective thing.
  The bill I am sending to the desk for reference to committee is a 7-
year authorization bill. It essentially authorizes the record of 
decision of a program known as CALFED. In California, there are two big 
water projects. One is the Central Valley Water Project owned by the 
Federal Government. That is the Federal interest. The Federal 
Government built it and owns it. The other is the California Water 
Project owned by the State of California, built by Governor Pat Brown 
back in the 1960s.
  This is, in essence, a State-Federal effort to improve the water 
infrastructure, to clean up the ecosystems, and to begin to build an 
infrastructure that can handle the demands of the next 50 years.
  The bill authorizes the ecosystem restoration program, and it fully 
authorizes all of the environmental projects listed in the record of 
decision. This includes improving fish passages, restoring streams, 
rivers, and habitats, and improving water quality.

  The bill authorizes 580,000 acre feet of water in the first year 
through the environmental water account, and the bill essentially 
authorizes the first three storage projects, off-stream water storage, 
listed in stage 1 of the record of decision: Enlarging the Los Vaqueros 
Reservoir, subject to a vote of the people of Contra Costa County; 
raising Shasta Dam; and constructing the delta wetlands project which 
involves flooding two delta islands for storage and using the other two 
islands for ecosystem protection. The end result of these three storage 
projects will be 2.3 million acre feet of new water storage.
  Some reporting and financial analysis must still be completed. CALFED 
expects these projects will have no adverse impacts, so we need to get 
started to make sure they can get in the line and get going.

[[Page S5711]]

  I do not believe we can meet all of our future water needs without 
increased water storage, water storage that is environmentally benign, 
that is off stream, and that provides flexibility in the system for us 
to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem 
restoration.
  Recharging groundwater, water recycling and reuse, conservation, and 
smarter use of the big pumps in the system are all tools we can use to 
help us meet our water needs.
  I am concerned this may not even be enough. We live in an area, 
though, where large new dams are extraordinarily controversial. So 
there is one thing left, and that is to take water from the wet years 
and store it in an environmentally sound way to use during the dry 
years.
  The bill I am presenting is balanced. It says, in essence, that the 
storage projects go ahead at the same time as the environmental 
projects. I believe very strongly that we are not going to be able to 
solve the problem just with environmental measures, that we need 
additional water storage as well.
  This is not a flash in the pan. I did not just arrive at this. A 
native-born Californian, I have watched this for years and years, and 
for the last 7 years in the Senate I have spent an enormous amount of 
time--probably 50, 60 meetings--with the stakeholders on all sides of 
this issue. It is my judgment that we must have this additional storage 
in addition to the ecosystems work.
  It is not going to be a perfect bill. It is a big bill. It is a 
State-Federal partnership. In my view, water and energy are the two 
essentials that can keep the California economy alive and keep its 
people flourishing. I hope it will have a favorable response in the 
committee and in this Chamber.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Conrad, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, 
        and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 977. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
require the Secretary of Agriculture to make nonrecourse marketing 
assistance loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of 
dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Dry Pea, 
Lentil, and Chickpea Marketing Assistance Loan Act,'' a bill to 
authorize a marketing loan program and loan deficiency payments, or 
LDPs, for pulse crops which include peas, lentils, and chickpeas. I am 
pleased that Senators Burns, Baucus, Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Daschle, 
Dorgan, Johnson and Murray have joined as original cosponsors.
  Pulses are grown across the northern tier of the United States. 
Traditionally pulses have been grown as a rotation crop that provides 
benefit to the soil, by fixing nitrogen, breaking weed and disease 
cycles, and reducing the need for field burning. Dryland farmers in 
northern Idaho for years have rotated wheat, canola, and dry peas, 
lentils or chickpeas. As prices have dropped for all commodities, 
including pulses, we have seen a shift in production patterns which 
have decreased the production of dry peas and lentils.
  Current wheat prices are no better than dry pea prices, pound for 
pound, but a banker will lend money to a grower of wheat and oilseeds 
because there is a loan program and LDP. The depressed markets have 
forced dryland farmers across the northen tier of the United States to 
abandon pulses in favor of traditional farm program crops like wheat, 
oilseeds, and barley.
  This bill attempts to remedy this situation by creating a loan rate 
for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas with support equivalent to the 
loan programs for spring wheat and canola. The bill mirrors existing 
statutory authority for the loan programs established for other crops 
by creating floor prices based from 85 percent of a five-year Olympic 
average. The approximate cost of the bill, and benefits to pulse 
growers, would be about $8.5 million annually.
  When we passed the last farm bill, the goal was to have farmers farm 
the land and not the programs. As prices have dropped, we are again 
seeing planting decisions made based on the programs available, which 
has made pulse crops less attractive in a rotation. As we begin the 
process of reauthorizing the farm bill, we will work to make sure that 
pulses are included so that farmers will be competitive with other 
crops grown in the area.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this 
amendment to the Agricultural Market Transition Act. It would require 
the Secretary of Agriculture to make nonrecourse marketing assistance 
loans and loan deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, 
lentils, and chickpeas.
  This amendment will go a long way toward giving producers of these 
commodities an equal opportunity to obtain the same financial 
opportunities as other producers now receive.
  We encourage our producers to grow what is often referred to as 
alternative crops. Producers have listened and they are successfully 
marketing these crops. The actions of this bill will now provide these 
innovative producers with the same economic benefits as producers of 
other crops. These farmers have dared to try something different and 
the least we can do is support them for they're daring.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Smith of 
        Oregon, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 978. A bill to provide for improved management of, and increased 
accountability for, outfitted activities by which the public gains 
access to and occupancy and use of Federal land, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in 
conjunction with my colleagues, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bennett, 
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Stevens, 
and Mr. Thomas, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001.
  This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in past 
congresses. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many 
of the management practices by which Federal land management agencies 
have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National 
Forests, National Parks and other Federal lands over many decades.
  The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills 
and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a 
safe and pleasant journey.
  The Outfitter Policy Act's primary purpose is to ensure accessibility 
to public lands by all segments of the population and maintain the 
availability of quality recreation services to the public. Outfitters 
and guides across the nation provide opportunities for outdoor 
recreation for many families and groups who would otherwise find the 
backcountry inaccessible.
  Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this 
legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This 
process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. As well as it 
allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have 
offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public.
  Congress has twice addressed this issue with respect to the National 
Park System permits, originally establishing standards for Park Service 
administration of guide/outfitter permits on their lands in 1965 and 
amending that system in 1998. Therefore, it is appropriate to set 
similar legislative standards for other public land systems such as 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, these and 
other land management agencies are now without Congressional guidance, 
and instead rules, permit terms and conditions and other intricacies 
are often left to local agency personnel. The Outfitter Policy Act 
would alleviate the discord involved in land management permitting, 
providing consistent guidance on the administration of guide/outfitter 
permits for the other Federal land management agencies.
  The Outfitter Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions 
necessary to sustain the substantial investment often needed to provide 
the level of service demanded by the public. However, the bill provides 
the agencies

[[Page S5712]]

ample flexibility to adjust use, conditions, and permit terms. All of 
which must be consistent with agency management plans and policies for 
resource conservation. The Outfitter Policy Act strives to provide a 
stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified 
entrants to the guide/outfitting business, while giving the agencies 
and operators clear directions.
  The Outfitter Policy Act is a measure that will facilitate access to 
public lands by the outfitted public, while providing incentives to 
outfitters to provide the high quality services over time. It is 
necessary to ensure that members of the public who need and rely on 
guides and outfitters for recreational access to public lands will 
continue to receive safe, quality services. I look forward to 
considering this legislation in the coming session of the 107th 
Congress.

                          ____________________